Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for  Trans-Pacific Partnership

Alun Cairns: What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership on the Scottish economy.

Alister Jack: I think that we should draw a veil over last night’s football, but I look forward to Scotland qualifying next month for Euro 2024.
Today is the National Farmers Union’s Back British Farming Day, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in marking the important contribution that we farmers and growers make to our everyday lives and to our economy.
The comprehensive and progressive agreement for the trans-Pacific partnership trade bloc is projected to make up the majority of global growth in the future. As a result of joining the CPTPP, a deal that we could not strike while in the EU, Scottish businesses are now in a prime position in the global economy to seize opportunities for new jobs, growth and innovation.

Alun Cairns: The CPTPP is the most exciting and dynamic trading bloc, and a significant Brexit dividend. Scotland, like Wales, has great products to export. My right hon. Friend mentioned farming. Welsh lamb and maybe Scotch whisky have some great opportunities to take advantage of within the CPTPP. Will he encourage the devolved Administrations to work with the UK Government to ensure that we exploit those benefits and this Brexit opportunity for people in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere?

Alister Jack: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is right: the CPTPP is the fastest-growing trade zone in the world, and with the UK included it is worth circa £12 trillion. To that end, we are working with the devolved Administrations. We have also put in a huge network of support centres across the UK, not least in Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Pete Wishart: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be assisted in determining Scotland’s place in international arrangements by the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report, “Promoting Scotland Internationally”, which was released today. In it, he will find that the working arrangements between personnel in both Governments are consensual and productive. Does he not therefore feel slightly embarrassed by the ridiculous diktat from the Foreign Secretary, intended to put the Scottish Government back in their place? The Scottish Secretary told our Committee that it was necessary because, among other insignificant things, Scottish Government Ministers had the temerity to say that Brexit is a bad thing for Scotland. Does he not think that nearly all of Scotland thinks that Brexit is a bad thing for Scotland?

Alister Jack: I stand by the words that I said to the hon. Member’s Committee.

Sheep and Cattle Exports: Quarantine

Ian Paisley Jnr: What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the adequacy of the quarantine period for (a) sheep and (b) cattle to be exported from Scotland to Northern Ireland.

Alister Jack: Livestock can move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and then return to Northern Ireland, as long as they are hosted at an Animal and Plant Health Agency approved assembly centre and return within 15 days.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the Windsor framework has created unnecessary bureaucracy around livestock movements from Northern Ireland to GB mainland, particularly into Scottish markets, and has in fact decimated our pedigree cattle trade? What can he do to help me?

Alister Jack: The hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion for rural communities in Northern Ireland, and he raises an important point. I will endeavour to arrange a meeting for him with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as soon as possible.

Poverty and Inequality

Martyn Day: What discussions he has held with Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government on the effectiveness of the steps being taken to reduce rates of (a) poverty and (b) inequality in Scotland.

John Lamont: The United Kingdom Government are committed to a sustainable approach to tackling poverty and supporting people on lower incomes. We have made substantial investment to help to mitigate the worst of the cost of living impacts, including welfare spending of around £276 billion. The best route out of poverty, of course, is through work. Therefore, our focus remains firmly on supporting people to move into and progress in work.

Martyn Day: Scotland has the lowest rates of child poverty in the UK, with the game-changing Scottish child payment helping more than 300,000, and lifting 50,000 of them out of poverty. Why do the UK Government continue to refuse to follow such a successful example?

John Lamont: The UK Government have ensured that the cost of living challenges have been tackled by working in tandem with the Scottish Government and using reserved and devolved levers to get the best outcomes for everybody across Scotland. The benefit cap levels have been increased by 10.1% from 1 April. The national living wage has increased by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour for workers aged 23 years and over. Overall, this Government are working to deliver for the most vulnerable in society, and will do so in conjunction with our partners in the Scottish Government.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Gerald Jones: After 16 years of SNP Government and 13 years of the Tories, one in four children in Scotland lives in poverty. There are 40,000 more children in poverty compared with a decade ago, and this week it was revealed that three members of the Scottish Government’s own Poverty and Inequality Commission had resigned. Does the Minister agree that both the Scottish and the UK Governments should be working more urgently and more effectively to tackle child poverty?

John Lamont: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. The UK Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society and we have taken decisive steps to do that, including UK-wide additional spending of £137.5 billion in benefits for pensioners, £67.9 billion in benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions and £114.3 billion in working-age benefits and child welfare. We have also uprated benefits and pension credit in line with inflation and have raised the national living wage to help to protect the most vulnerable. We will continue to keep the situation under review, but this Government have continually demonstrated our commitment to the most vulnerable across Scotland.

Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage

Neale Hanvey: What recent discussions he has held with Cabinet colleagues on supporting the development of carbon capture, utilisation and storage in Scotland.

John Lamont: Carbon capture, utilisation and storage will be essential to meeting the UK’s 2050 net zero target, playing a vital role in levelling up the economy, supporting the low-carbon economic transformation of our industrial regions and creating new high-value jobs across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the Acorn cluster has been allocated more than £40 million in development funding by the Government and has been selected, subject to final due diligence, for track 2 CCUS cluster sequencing.

Neale Hanvey: According to Office for Budget Responsibility and UK Government projections, the UK will see between £50 billion and £80 billion in revenue from North sea oil and gas over the next five years. While it is welcome that the Acorn project can now bid for funding, it is important to know that not a penny has been committed. Can the Minister tell me what discussions the Secretary of State has had with  Government colleagues to secure at minimum a share of those revenues—say £1 billion over five years—to rapidly accelerate Scotland’s carbon capture industry? If not, does that mean he is content to see Scotland’s people stripped of their vast natural resources without a single penny of that £80 billion being invested in Scotland’s carbon capture ambitions?

John Lamont: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman actually listened to my first answer, but more than £40 million has been allocated by the United Kingdom Government to the development of this technology. The Government will commence engagement and assessment of delivery plans and due diligence on the Acorn and Viking transportation and storage systems and will engage with them directly in respect of the next steps to develop those. We will set out the process by which capture products in track 2 will be selected to meet the stated ambitions in due course.

Scottish Economy

Kerry McCarthy: What recent steps his Department has taken to help support the Scottish economy.

John Lamont: When it comes to growth, the hon. Lady will have noted that the economic data shows that we have recovered better from the pandemic than France, Italy or Germany. Supporting economic growth in Scotland remains a core priority of the Scotland Office, exemplified through our work in investing in the city and regional growth deals and in delivering freeports and investment zones in Scotland, which has brought tens of millions of pounds in investment and has created highly paid jobs.

Kerry McCarthy: There is huge potential for offshore wind in Scotland and it is an important part of the transition to a green economy there. What conversations will the Minister be having with the offshore wind sector following the absolutely disastrous contracts for difference round last week?

John Lamont: I personally engage with all sectors of the energy market, including the offshore wind sector. We are very pleased with the announcements that have been made following the announcements last week and will continue to engage with the sector to see it develop across Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

Ian Murray: I join the Secretary of State in saying how gutted we are about the football result last night—but mark my words, we will be seeking revenge in Germany at the European championships next year.
I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who was in the shadow Scotland team but has moved on to do new things after the reshuffle, and to welcome to the Scotland team my hon. Friend the Member for Keir Hardie’s old seat, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). He is very welcome.
Last week, it was revealed that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), had secured a book deal. Her book is titled “Ten Years to Save the West”, but it might have been better focusing on the 44 days it took her and her Government, with the support of the Scottish Secretary, to crush the economy. Does the Minister accept that Scots will be paying the price for years to come for the Tories’ kamikaze handling of the economy?

John Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the economic challenges we face here in the United Kingdom are no different from those faced by other economies around the world. They have been entirely caused by the illegal war in Ukraine and the covid pandemic. Thankfully, due to the decisive action of this Conservative Government and Prime Minister, the evidence suggests that the UK is recovering from the economic shock far better than France, Italy and Germany.

Ian Murray: Ukraine and covid did not crash the economy; this Government did. The truth is that, after 13 years, we have a low-wage, low-growth economy. Let me take the example of residents in a random Scottish constituency, Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Behind every door we knock on, the story is the same: the cost of living. Those voters are paying the price for two bad Governments: the UK Government, who crashed the economy and are asking working people to pay for it, and the Scottish Government, who mismanaged the economy and are also asking working people to pay for it. There is a Tory premium on everyone’s mortgages and rents, alongside the highest tax burden on working people in 80 years, and the SNP wants to increase income taxes further and is proposing eye-watering council tax rates for those residents. Do the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West not deserve a fresh start with Scottish Labour’s Michael Shanks?

John Lamont: It was not so long ago that Scottish Labour was calling for even higher taxes on the people of Scotland. When Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar stood for the leadership, he said:
“I actually think our tax policies will be even more progressive and radical than even John McDonnell’s or Jeremy Corbyn’s tax policies or manifesto”.
Mr Sarwar has now U-turned, of course, but maybe the hon. Gentleman can explain how much Scottish Labour secretly wants to put up taxes in Scotland.

UK Departure from EU

Patrick Grady: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on Scotland.

Alister Jack: The UK Government are focused on opening new international export markets for Scottish businesses. We have trade agreements with 71 non-EU countries and the EU, and those agreements will support growth, jobs and higher wages. The hon. Gentleman will have noted the recently revised numbers, which show that we have recovered better from the pandemic than France, Italy or Germany. Since 2010, the United Kingdom has achieved the third highest rate of growth in the G7—faster than Italy, France, Japan and Germany.

Patrick Grady: We had a really good trading relationship with the European Union—it was called membership—and 78% of people in Glasgow North, and 62% of people across Scotland, voted to retain it. If Brexit is really delivering the successes that the Secretary of State says it is, why does he think the polls show that those figures would be even higher if the people of Scotland had the choice again?

Alister Jack: The recent trading numbers show that we are now doing more trade with the EU in goods and services than we did when we were members.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are developing a much better relationship with our former colleagues in the EU, including through agreements such as the Windsor framework, and our accession to the North sea group of countries that co-operate on energy and, more recently, to Horizon and other European programmes? That shows that we are on the right footing to have a good future relationship post Brexit.

Alister Jack: Yes. On Horizon, we were patient and did the right deal. It showed the future for British scientists, as well as how important British scientists were to Horizon and how much the EU wanted them to be part of it. My right hon. and learned Friend is right: we have a better relationship, and one that does not cost £22 billion a year.

NHS England-NHS Scotland Co-operation

Jamie Stone: Whether he has held recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government on increasing co-operation between NHS England and NHS Scotland.

John Lamont: The United Kingdom Government support collaboration between all our nations to share best practice, improve transparency and provide better accountability for patients. Ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care have written to the Scottish Government inviting them for talks on how we can work together to tackle long-term waiting lists in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Jamie Stone: If someone is sick and their life is in danger, is it not the case that the border between Scotland and England should not get in the way of the best possible health outcome?

John Lamont: The hon. Member makes an extremely important point—that is something about which I am acutely aware as a Borders MP. Indeed, I have a constituent who lives in Foulden who has been told that they will need to wait over three years to have their cataracts seen to in Scotland. Meanwhile, their neighbours, who are registered with a GP in England, are being treated by NHS England within six months. My constituent simply does not understand that discrepancy. The SNP Government in Edinburgh should be doing much more to drive down NHS waiting lists and engage with colleagues in Westminster to ensure that all people across these islands get the best possible NHS services.

Government Spending: Public Services

Mary Glindon: What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the levels of Government spending in Scotland to deliver public services.

John Lamont: The United Kingdom Government are providing a record settlement of £41 billion per year—the largest since devolution. In fact, the UK Government are providing the Scottish Government with over 20% more funding per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in England. With the generous fiscal framework agreement, the Scottish Government have the certainty and flexibility to manage their budget and deliver high-quality public services across Scotland.

Mary Glindon: The recent programme for government launched by the Scottish First Minister only revealed a tired Government too distracted by internal squabbling to achieve anything for the people of Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish people deserve a change of Government in Scotland and Westminster, with a Labour Government focused on tackling the cost of living and improving living standards for the whole of the UK?

John Lamont: The SNP’s programme for government was a complete and utter missed opportunity: rather than focusing on Scotland’s NHS and schools, and our economy and transport links, the SNP is too busy planning independence rallies. Scotland does need change, and I am confident that, in the next general election, we will see that change in the election of even more Scottish Conservative and Unionist MPs.

Seafood Sector

David Duguid: What recent discussions he has held with Cabinet colleagues on supporting the seafood sector in Scotland.

John Lamont: The Government are committed to supporting our seafood sector, which is the lifeblood of some of the most remote and fragile communities in Scotland. This past Monday, I met with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to discuss in more detail the comprehensive package of support measures this Government have offered to the sector to ease access to labour challenges.

David Duguid: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. What discussions has he had with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—I see the Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), sitting next to him on the Front Bench—and the Scottish Government to ensure that the impacts of offshore wind on the fishing industry and coastal communities will be adequately addressed, along with the impacts of marine protection areas?

John Lamont: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his continued, energetic and relentless campaigning for his constituency and the fishing sector. This Government are committed to working with other Government Departments and the Scottish Government on our shared ambition to protect the marine environment and ensure  that the increasing spatial squeeze on our sea is managed effectively. However, we also note the legitimate concerns of the fishing industry and continue to engage with stakeholders, other UK Government Departments and the Scottish Government through the Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group. I understand that the Energy Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), is due to meet my hon. Friend shortly.

Jim Shannon: Fishermen from Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel work hand in hand with fishermen from Scotland, so whatever benefits the Minister can bring to Scottish fishermen will benefit the fishermen and fisherwomen of Northern Ireland. Have any discussions taken place of how Scotland and Northern Ireland can work better together, including here at Westminster?

John Lamont: I am happy to work with all colleagues across the United Kingdom to advance the fishing industry, and I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss how we do that together.

Devolution of Drugs Policy

Joanna Cherry: What discussions he has held with Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government on the devolution of drugs policy to Scotland.

Marion Fellows: What discussions he has held with Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government on the devolution of drugs policy to Scotland.

Alister Jack: Illicit drugs destroy lives and devastate communities. The United Kingdom Government’s 10-year drug strategy sets out ambitious plans, backed by a record £3 billion over three years, to tackle the supply of illicit drugs and build a world-class system of treatment and recovery. This is a UK-wide strategy, and there are no plans to devolve drugs policy to the Scottish Government.

Joanna Cherry: The Lord Advocate has announced that she is not going to prosecute drug users for simple possession offences committed within a pilot safer drugs consumption facility. Both the Home Affairs Committee of this House and the Scottish Affairs Committee have recommended that the UK Government support such a pilot in Glasgow by creating a legislative pathway under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that would enable such a facility to operate, or by devolving the power to the Scottish Government. Both cross-party Committees of this House are very clear that the evidence shows that those measures could be lifesaving, so when will the Secretary of State act to save lives in Scotland by persuading his Government to drop their intransigence on this issue?

Alister Jack: It was disappointing that the Scottish Government were not prepared to work with the UK Government on Project ADDER. That offer was made with supporting funding. The E in ADDER is for “enforcement”. I believe the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service should be enforcing the laws in Scotland, not decriminalising drugs, because enforcement helps to drive people to health solutions.

Marion Fellows: The Minister did not answer the question, so I will try again. Scotland needs a caring, compassionate, human rights-informed drugs policy with public health and the reduction of harm as its principles, and the Scottish Government are ready and willing to work with the UK Government to put that progressive policy into practice. Scottish Tory MSP Miles Briggs said on “Good Morning Scotland” yesterday that he hoped the UK Government would not move to block this lifesaving measure. Despite the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues continuing to denounce its effectiveness, what recent discussions has he had with the Scottish Government on advancing this pilot scheme?

Alister Jack: Drug consumption rooms are not the easy solution hon. Members may think they are. There is no safe way to take illegal drugs. Drugs devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities. The UK Government believe that the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service should fully enforce the law. However, I say to the hon. Lady that if the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate decide to proceed with a pilot on DCRs, the UK Government will not intervene.

Kevin Foster: The Secretary of state will fully realise the challenge it would present for Border Force if we had differing rules on what drugs were lawful and not lawful across the United Kingdom. Therefore, will he assure me that he will not look to devolve drugs policy, and will instead get the Scottish Government to focus on their own responsibilities?

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Alister Jack: Labour Members always seem to cheer me at this moment in Scottish questions. They are very generous.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Drug deaths in Scotland are three times higher than the UK average, despite the laws being the same across the UK. I do not believe drug consumption rooms are the panacea to those problems, but we absolutely must have drugs laws that work across the whole United Kingdom because it is a UK-wide problem.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Tommy Sheppard: I think we should be clear: the Lord Advocate’s statement on Monday is a game changer. It removes one of the major obstacles to a pilot drug consumption facility, which is designed to prevent overdoses. The Secretary of State has been equivocal in his responses so far, so let me give him another chance to get on the right side of history. Will he actually say that he will support and work with the Scottish Government to see this pilot project through?

Alister Jack: I think I have been clear. I have been clear that the UK Government’s policy is not to proceed with drug consumption rooms. We believe, as I have said, that drugs devastate families and destroy communities. I was very clear about those things, but I am also very clear that the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government appear to have achieved a workaround that allows them to have a pilot drug consumption room, probably in Glasgow, and the United Kingdom Government will not intervene in that, so the SNP now has no more excuses.

Tommy Sheppard: Can I press the Secretary of State on this point, because of course he has form on intervening in decisions of the Scottish Government? He says he will not intervene. Can we therefore be clear that he will say, on behalf of the UK Government, that he will not use any administrative or legislative means to frustrate or block this pilot policy by the Scottish Government?

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Alister Jack: I am very popular today. I will be with SNP Members in particular when I say that the answer is yes.

Cost of Living Increases

Christine Jardine: What recent discussions he has held with the Scottish Government on the impact of increases in the cost of living on people in (a) the UK and (b) Scotland.

John Lamont: Our Government have taken assertive action on the cost of living. UK-wide support for households to help with higher energy bills is worth £94 billion, or £3,300 per household on average. The United Kingdom Government’s focus has been on supporting everyone with the cost of living with specific targeted support and tailored interventions for the most vulnerable.

Christine Jardine: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will know that, like his constituents, my constituents in Edinburgh West still face the impact of food inflation, higher energy bills and unfair standing charges for electricity. However, we also now face the potential bombshell of a council tax hike by the Scottish Government, which will affect 14,500 households in Edinburgh West that will have to pay more than £2,000 a year. Will the UK Government be speaking to the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] If SNP Members do not mind! Will the UK Government be speaking to the Scottish Government to try to mitigate this, and what steps do they have in mind to do so?

John Lamont: I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the SNP-Green Government’s bombshell tax plans to hike up the tax burden for many households, with people already facing pressures on their household budgets. As she will know, along with the record block grant, the spring Budget provided the Scottish Government with an extra £320 million over the next two years, on top of the £1.5 billion of additional funding that we provided in the autumn statement of 2022. Our economic priorities of halving inflation and growing the economy are the most effective way of supporting her constituents.

Strength of the Union

Robbie Moore: What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

Alister Jack: I believe that support for the Union is strong. The United Kingdom is one of the most successful political and economic unions in the world, and the foundation on which all our businesses and citizens are able to thrive. When we work collaboratively, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous.

Robbie Moore: While the SNP’s First Minister whips up grievance politics at independence rallies, Scotland’s NHS goes backwards, Scotland’s ferries do not work and Scotland’s economy stagnates. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is about time that the SNP stopped obsessing about another independence referendum, and started delivering for the people of Scotland?

Alister Jack: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I could not have put it better myself.

Angus MacNeil: Is the truth of the Union not that while we see independent Norway and independent Ireland in budget surplus—independent Ireland with a surplus this year of €10 billion, rising to €23 billion in the next three years—the Scottish Government cannot build small hospitals on small Scottish islands? Is the answer not for Scotland to remove the Westminster handcuffs and to get the independence and budget surpluses of Norway and Ireland, so that we can move forward and move away from the Brexit of the Tories and the Labour party?

Alister Jack: They always say independence will sort the problems. Scotland is not building hospitals on the islands because the Scottish Government are squandering the most generous settlement they have had since devolution began.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I wish to welcome a special guest who is observing our proceedings today—the Speaker of the Jordanian House of Representatives. Mr Speaker, you are most welcome.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Chris Law: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 September.

Rishi Sunak: I start by paying tribute to the Clerk of the House, Sir John Benger, and thank him for his many years of distinguished service. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Chris Law: The wealth of billionaires has skyrocketed over the past decade, while average working households in the UK have the lowest living standards since the 1950s. While hard-working families are struggling to make ends meet, the wealthy are playing by a different set of rules, with reports that even Members of the House of Lords are trying to exploit the non-dom status loophole to avoid paying their fair share. Does the Prime Minister agree that whether it is the wife of the most powerful man in the country or the host of “The Apprentice”, no billionaire should qualify for special tax treatment while my constituents face soaring levels of inequality and poverty?

Rishi Sunak: The facts tell a very different story from what the hon. Gentleman said. He mentioned inequality; inequality today is lower than it was in 2010. He mentioned the number of people in poverty. Again, I am pleased to say that 1.7 million fewer people are in poverty today than in 2010, including many in Scotland. Of course we understand that things are challenging right now with the cost of living. That is why we have put in place record support to help families, particularly with their energy bills and particularly for the most vulnerable in our society, with record amounts of cost of living payments going to millions across the country, including in Scotland, showing the power of the United Kingdom Government.

Nicola Richards: Thanks to this Conservative Government, we have the opportunity to be the first country in the world to end new cases of HIV by 2030. That is partially down to our world-leading opt-out HIV testing programme that has been rolled out in very high prevalence areas. To reach this goal and to make this progress, we must roll out opt-out testing to other high prevalence areas, such as the west midlands, including my constituency of West Bromwich East. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting me and the incredible Terrence Higgins Trust to hear more about the merits of opt-out testing?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and thank her for her work in this area. We remain absolutely committed to ending new HIV transmissions within England by 2030, and I am pleased that she highlighted that the provisional data from NHS England indicates that the opt-out testing programme has been highly successful. The Department of Health and Social Care is currently evaluating the impact of the programme with a view to deciding whether it should be expanded to additional areas, and I know Ministers will keep her and the House updated.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I join the Prime Minister in his words about the Clerk of the House.
I pay tribute to the police who tracked down the escaped terror suspect from Wandsworth prison last week. Despite being charged with terrorism, and despite being a flight risk, he was not held in a category A prison. Why not?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the police and their partners for their efforts to find and arrest Daniel Khalife. There is now an ongoing legal process that must be allowed to take its course, but I would like to reassure the public that while these cases are extremely rare, the Justice Secretary has launched an internal investigation about how this could happen, as well as an independent investigation of the incident so that we can learn the lessons from this case and ensure that it never happens again.

Keir Starmer: The truth is, the Government are presiding over mayhem in the criminal justice system. Only a few short months ago, Zara Aleena’s family said that Ministers had—these are their words—“blood on their hands”  after probation failures that led to her murder, so it beggars belief that we are back here once again. The chief inspector of prisons said that conditions in Wandsworth were so bad that it should be shut down. The Chancellor is telling anyone who will listen that he raised concerns months ago. Probation, school buildings, and now prisons—why does the Prime Minister keep ignoring the warnings until it is too late?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his background, should know better. Because of the wide variety and considerable difference in severity of people charged under that Act, it is not, and has never been, the policy that they are all held in category A prisons. It should not need me to point that out to him, given his experience.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about resourcing. I am happy to tell him that, over the last few years, we have delivered an extra 4,000 new prison officers. Staffing levels at Wandsworth in particular are up by 25% in the past six years and, because we are boosting prison pay, we are also improving retention. At the same time, we are investing £100 million to improve prison security with new measures such as X-ray body scanners. If he wanted to have a truly honest debate about this, perhaps he would acknowledge that prison escapes were almost 10 times higher under the Labour Government than under the Conservatives. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I did say this last week, and it will continue this week: anyone who wants to start the session by leaving, please do so. I am happy to help you on your way.

Keir Starmer: Every week, whatever the topic, the Prime Minister paints this picture as if everything is great and fine out there. It is so at odds with the lived experience in the real world.
Let me turn to another serious security concern. Some in this House face sanction, intimidation and threats from the Chinese state. When I asked the Prime Minister on Monday whether the Foreign Secretary raised the specific issue of the alleged spy arrested in March when he visited China a few weeks ago, he would only say that he raised that “type of activity”, but avoided specifics. I ask the Prime Minister again: did the Foreign Secretary raise this specific case when he visited China—yes or no?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to my previous answer, where I said clearly that the Foreign Secretary raised these issues with the Chinese Foreign Minister, whom he met, as did I when I had my meeting with Premier Li over the weekend. When it comes to China, the Government have put in place the most robust policy that has ever existed in our country’s foreign policy. It is to protect our country and the values and interests we stand up for; it is to align our approach with our closest allies, including those in the G7 and Five Eyes; and it is to engage—where it makes sense—either to advance our interests or, as I did at the weekend, to raise our very significant concerns. That is the right approach to China. It is one that is welcomed by each and every one of our allies. I would be interested to know what he thinks he would do differently.

Keir Starmer: That certainly was not a yes. What the Prime Minister says now is totally at odds with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament report of July. That set out that the Government have no clear strategy when it comes to China, have failed to support the intelligence agencies, and are leaving the UK “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. This has been raised time and again but, yet again, the Prime Minister fails to heed the warnings and is now desperately playing catch-up. Will he finally commit to the full audit of UK-China relations that so many in this House have so long demanded?

Rishi Sunak: As always, the Leader of the Opposition is just playing catch-up, but he has not caught up with the reality of what is actually happening. He talks about the ISC report. If he actually went through it, he would realise that it related to a period of investigations in 2019 and 2020. Since then, we have launched a whole new integrated review refresh of our China strategy, which is published. We have put in place a range of new measures, including the National Security Protective Authority, which is staffed out of MI5 and supports businesses and organisations to be alert to the risks from cyber and from China.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to talk about foreign policy, he should perhaps reflect on his own record. This is the man who said he was 100% behind the former Labour leader—a person who wanted to abolish the Army, scrap Trident and withdraw from NATO. It is clear what he did: he put his own political interests ahead of Britain’s.

Keir Starmer: Probation, prisons, schools, China—yet again, inaction man fails to heed the warnings and then blames everyone else for the consequences. On Sunday, the Home Secretary celebrated her first anniversary in post—that is, if we overlook the six days she missed when she was deemed a national security risk. In that year, 40,000 people have crossed the channel on a small boat, and the taxpayer is now spending £6 million a day on hotel bills. The Prime Minister is failing to stop terrorists strolling out of prison, failing to guard Britain against hostile actors, and he is completely failing to stop the boats. How can anyone trust him to protect the country?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about trust and about action, but just today, this Government are taking action to reform defective EU laws to unlock over 100,000 homes, boosting our economy, supporting jobs and ensuring that we can realise the aspirations of homeowners. He talks about trust; he tried in this House to talk the talk on house building, but at the first sign of a cheap political hit, what did he do? He caved in. Rather than make the right long-term decisions for the country, he has taken the easy way out. It is typical of the principle-free, conviction-free type of leadership that he offers, flip-flopping from being a builder to a blocker. The British public cannot trust a word he says.

Keir Starmer: Every week the Prime Minister comes here, protesting that nothing is his fault and trying to convince anyone who is still listening that everything is great. The truth is that the floor fell in for millions of families because of the Government’s economic mayhem;  the classroom ceilings collapsed because he cut vital school budgets; and now the walls of our national security have been breached because they have ignored repeated warnings. No one voted for this shambles. No one voted for him. How much more damage do the British public have to put up with before he finally finds the stomach to give them a say?

Rishi Sunak: We are getting on for the British public. Just in the last week we have announced a new landmark deal for British scientists and attracted £600 million of new investment for our world-leading auto industry, and wages are now rising at the fastest rate on record. And where has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been this week? Locked away with Labour’s union paymasters, promising to give them more power and to scrap the laws that protect British families and their access to public services. It is clear that it is only the Conservatives who are on the side of the hard-working British public.

Andrew Jones: Last week, with Yorkshire colleagues, I met our local integrated care board to discuss plans for improving dentistry provision. When surgeries suddenly close to NHS patients without notice, as one in Harrogate did very recently, an immediate strain is put on local provision. Will the Prime Minister look at what can be done in those circumstances to ensure no one is left without access to an NHS dentist?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that, and we will look into the issue.  He will be reassured to know that we are investing £3 billion a year in dentistry. There is no geographical restriction on which dental practice a patient may attend and practices should keep all their records up to date, including whether they are accepting new patients. Typically, where a practice ends a contract, NHS England and ICBs should work together to ensure that funding is reallocated and patients continue to have access to NHS dental care.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: As someone who spends more money heating their swimming pool than the total value of the UK state pension, the Prime Minister—I think it is safe to say—might not be as invested in this topic as some others, but let us afford him the opportunity to clear up any confusion. Will he commit his party, the Conservative party, to maintaining the state pension triple lock beyond the next general election—yes or no?

Rishi Sunak: This is the party that introduced the triple lock. This is the party that has delivered a £3,000 increase in the state pension since 2010. It is also the party that has ensured that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners living in poverty today and that this winter pensioners will get an extra £300 alongside their winter fuel payment to support them through the challenging times with inflation. Our track record is clear. There is one party in this House that has always stood up for our pensioners and that is the Conservative party.

Stephen Flynn: I do not think we heard a yes there, Mr Speaker. You will imagine my shock—my utter surprise—that we appear to have consensus once again  between the Conservative party and the Labour party on this most important of issues, despite the promises that were made to the people of Scotland in 2014 and despite clear statements from the likes of Gordon Brown that the only way to protect pensions was to remain within the UK. How hollow those words are now. Who does the Prime Minister think will scrap the state pension triple lock first, his Government or the Labour party’s Government?

Rishi Sunak: Thanks to the actions of this Government, pensioners in Scotland are receiving record increases in their state pension—£870 this year—and extra support with the cost of living this winter. This is the Government who introduced and remain committed to the triple lock, but the hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Pensioners in Scotland should know that the reason they can rely on the state pension, not just today but for years to come, is the strength of our Union and the strength of our United Kingdom Government.

Caroline Ansell: Beautiful Eastbourne is perhaps best known as a top visitor destination, but there is important work being done to put us on the digital map. DigiFest, the first local event of its kind, is coming to the Welcome Building next week. It will showcase some pretty stellar local tech talent and open doors of opportunity, with an ambition to create 10,000 local jobs in this sector. Will the Prime Minister applaud event organisers Chalk Eastbourne and Switchplane, and lay out what the Government are doing to ensure Great Britain—and Eastbourne—is one of the best places in the world to be involved in this continually groundbreaking sector?

Rishi Sunak: The Government have a mission to make the UK the most innovative economy in the world and the growth of our tech industry is one of the key ways we will achieve that. I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking and paying tribute to Chalk Eastbourne for its terrific organisation of DigiFest. This is a great example of how, in local areas, we can bring together people to create jobs and opportunity, and ultimately drive the growth that our country wants to see.

Edward Davey: Last year, after being referred by their GP, 22,000 people waited more than four months to start urgent treatment for cancer—a terrible wait that is twice as long as the Government’s maximum 62-day pledge; a cancer target they have not met once since 2015. We all have loved ones whose lives have been turned upside down by cancer and we all know that every day counts. Waiting reduces the chances of survival. Will the Prime Minister tell people waiting anxiously to start their cancer treatment when this cancer target will be met?

Rishi Sunak: It is absolutely right that we do everything we can to speed up cancer diagnosis. The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer recovery: as the right hon. Gentleman will know, before the pandemic there were about 200,000 cancer referrals a month, but during the pandemic the figure dropped to about 80,000, and now, as those referrals come through,   that is having an impact. However, we are ensuring that there are hundreds more oncologists and radiologists working this year than last year, and rolling out more than 160 community diagnostic centres. As the right hon. Gentleman says, early diagnosis is key, which is why, although there is work to do, cancer treatment today is at record levels. We are making progress, and the 62-day backlog is now falling. Recently the NHS wrote to all trusts, streamlining our targets, clinically advised, and now all the focus is on meeting them as quickly as possible.

Chris Green: In 2017, the Bolton police station custody suite was closed by the police and crime commissioner and the then chief constable, because they had given up on arresting criminals. The new chief constable is delivering on the people’s priorities, so that emergency calls are answered promptly, crimes are investigated and arrests are made, which means that the newly reopened custody suite is always full. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Greater Manchester police? Does he think that that approach ought to catch on throughout the country?

Rishi Sunak: I am delighted with the improvements that have been made by Greater Manchester police; the Home Secretary met the chief constable recently. They have made significant improvements in, for example, answering 999 calls, and have seen almost a 50% year on year increase in the number of charges recorded. I very much welcome the force’s focus on getting the basics on crime and antisocial behaviour right. It is a model for police forces across the country.

Ashley Dalton: I thank the Prime Minister for his response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), but I am still confused on this matter. Just yesterday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that the pensions triple lock was not sustainable, and the Chancellor’s economic advisers have suggested that it is time to review the policy, but those at No. 10, when questioned, have said that they are committed to it. Which is it?

Rishi Sunak: This Government are committed to the triple lock; it was this Government who introduced the triple lock. The hon. Lady might want to have a word with her own deputy leader, who did not provide much clarity on the matter. What we all remember, when it came to pensions, is Gordon Brown’s 75p a week increase.

Saqib Bhatti: Week in week out, as I meet businesses in my constituency, I hear about how artificial intelligence is transforming the way we work in sectors such as life sciences, automotives and financial services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that artificial intelligence will transform the way in which humanity will live in the 21st century? Through his upcoming global AI summit, will he ensure that appropriate guardrails are put in place to protect society as we become world leaders in this technology?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the incredible power of AI to transform not just businesses and our productivity, but public services   such as health and education. However, we do need guardrails to allow us to make the most of the opportunities of AI, and to address risks. We have a responsible, proportionate regulatory approach that balances risk with innovation, and I look forward to working with international partners at our upcoming AI safety summit on how we do that at a global level.

Daisy Cooper: Luton airport is trying to expand its capacity massively, from 18 million passengers per year to a whopping 32 million. That will blight the lives of thousands of residents across Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire—especially those in north St Albans, who live under the flightpaths—but it will also fly in the face of advice from the Government’s own climate advisers. It has been reported that the Prime Minister is getting ready to ignore his climate advisers. Is that true?

Rishi Sunak: No; but I would say that my approach to reaching net zero is not one that requires people to give up doing the things that they want to do and enjoy, such as flying. The right thing to be doing is as we are doing: investing in and funding new technologies, such as sustainable aviation fuel, because that is how we will decarbonise aviation during the transition to net zero, rather than forcing people to give everything up.

Kit Malthouse: When the Prime Minster was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put the full might of the Treasury behind the 10-year drug strategy, which, with its Adder Project, is now turning lives around across England and Wales. A key part of that strategy was developing a new approach to possession. He will know from his own constituency that in towns such as Andover in mine, possession is a huge concern, particularly to the parents of young people who spend time in the town centre. The Home Office issued a White Paper on this over a year ago, and the consultation closed in October last year. Will the Prime Minister commit in the forthcoming King’s Speech to legislation that will deal finally with this pernicious problem?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for all of his work and attention in this area; it was good to work with him on Project Adder in particular. He is right to highlight the fact that drugs destroy lives and families, hitting the most vulnerable in our society the hardest. The 10-year drug strategy, which he helped put in place, is ambitious and backed with a record £3 billion of funding. As he highlighted, we have consulted on a new drug possession offences framework, and I assure him that Ministers will keep him and this House updated on future plans.

Kate Hollern: In the last few hours I have been contacted by the headteacher of St James’s Church of England Primary School in Blackburn, who is desperately seeking help after a reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete survey conducted on 7 September was inconclusive. The urgent intrusive inspection that was supposed to follow has not been arranged by the Department for Education. The potentially affected part of the building has been closed off, with children crammed into the dining room and learning at the tables. Staff are unable to access facilities and the whole  school is hugely inconvenienced. The headteacher has been unable to meet the Department for Education, so can I implore the Prime Minister to get the Secretary of State for Education to investigate this urgently?

Rishi Sunak: Of course I am sorry for the disruption at schools as we work hard to identify those affected, but the DFE is fully funding the inspection process, ensuring that we are now rapidly inspecting and surveying all potentially affected schools and paying for that work. Also, with the increase of up to 80 dedicated caseworkers, St James’s Primary School, like others, should have a dedicated point of contact to work through those issues. I will ensure that the Secretary of State and the Department are in touch with the school and the hon. Member for an update.

Stephen Hammond: Personally, I know the stark impact of dementia and the effect that it has on the families of our 1 million citizens who live with it. It was my honour last week to sponsor Alzheimer’s Research UK to highlight the recent progress on a new diagnostic test and new drugs that could be available as early as next January. I welcome the inclusion of dementia in the Government’s major conditions strategy, but will my right hon. Friend ask his Secretary of State to convene a dementia medicines taskforce so that we can take advantage of this progress in research? Will he consider Alzheimer’s Research UK’s request for a dementia champion?

Rishi Sunak: I start by thanking my hon. Friend for his work in this important area. Regulators are working closely with industry to evaluate new dementia medicines, because of course we want patients to benefit from rapid access to safe and effective treatments. We are also strongly committed to funding dementia research, including doubling the amount allocated to £160 million a year by next year, and last year we launched the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia mission, backed up with new funding, which will work with industry to develop biomarkers and data and digital science innovations and to strengthen our trials in dementia. I look forward to hearing more suggestions from my hon. Friend  on that.

Derek Twigg: In the 1990s, under the Conservative Government, people were dying because of the length of time they were on NHS waiting lists. In 2023, we are seeing an increasing number of people dying while they are on NHS waiting lists before getting treatment. Is the Prime Minister ashamed that people are dying needlessly on his watch?

Rishi Sunak: Of course, the number on waiting lists has been impacted significantly by the pandemic, but that is why we have put record funding in place to help to address that, including innovations such as surgical hubs, same-day emergency care, virtual wards and such like. I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in England, part of the reason that waiting lists are not coming down as fast we would like is the strike action by doctors—something that is supported by him and his colleagues, who have stood on the picket lines ensuring that patients cannot get access to care. It is also him and his party who are saying that they will   repeal the laws we have put in place that will guarantee patients safe access to medical treatment in the event of industrial action. If he wants to make this issue emotional, he should tell people why he believes that patients should be deprived of access to lifesaving care because of industrial action.

West Midlands: Economic Outlook

Michael Fabricant: What recent assessment he has made of the economic outlook for the west midlands.

Rishi Sunak: We regularly engage with local partners across the west midlands to gather insight and intelligence on the economy. Earlier this year we initiated the trailblazer devolution deal, which includes measures to help businesses thrive. I see that, just the other week, the Mayor launched Business Growth West Midlands, backed with £100 million in funding for business support.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I am glad to hear about the continuing growth in the west midlands. However, in Lichfield we have a problem with road and footpath closures, and we do not know for how long they will go on. HS2 is behind these closures, and one hand does not know what the other is doing—HS2 is the most dysfunctional organisation I have ever had to deal with. Will the Prime Minister, in the short term, try to restructure HS2 so that it works as a company should? In the longer term, can he save other constituencies by stopping HS2 at the end of phase 1?

Rishi Sunak: I know the frustration that this is causing to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I am told that HS2 Ltd is prioritising the completion of works that are under way, including roadworks in Lichfield, to keep disruption to a minimum. I know that the Transport Secretary will continue to hold it to account and that the company will keep local communities informed about future works.

Engagements

Emma Hardy: UK billpayers are facing having to pay an extra £1 billion because of the Government’s failure to agree new offshore wind. With Russia using energy as a weapon, when will the Prime Minister take energy security seriously and protect us from the whims of fossil fuel autocrats?

Rishi Sunak: We do take energy security seriously. Indeed, we created a brand-new Department to focus on energy security, so it is a bit rich coming from a Labour party, which wants to cut off our access to home-grown British oil and gas, which would increase our reliance on foreign oil and gas, increase our reliance on dictators and increase our exposure to those markets. As independent reports have said, it would also be bad for the climate, as imported fossil fuels come with something like two or three times the emissions. Labour’s policy is not just bad for the environment; it is bad for our energy security and bad for British jobs.

Kevin Foster: The collapse of a potential rescue deal for Wilko this week brings added urgency to the regeneration of our town centres. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and the leader of Torbay Council to identify ways that, with Government support and planning reform, this can be accelerated?

Rishi Sunak: Investment through both arms of our towns fund is part of how we will regenerate and unleash the potential of our town centres. I am delighted to hear that that investment includes Torbay’s £21.9 million town deal and, indeed, £13.5 million for Paignton via the future high streets fund. My hon. Friend is right about ensuring that our planning system is friendly for small businesses, and that is what we are doing: making it much easier to convert unused shops into cafés, restaurants or, indeed, new homes. That is an example of how we are helping our high streets to adapt and thrive.

Florence Eshalomi: The new Defence Secretary has been quoted as saying that RAAC could be present in military buildings. Can the Prime Minister today guarantee the safety of our military personnel and equipment? Or is this yet another ticking time bomb that the Government have failed to see coming?

Rishi Sunak: Across the public sector, Departments are making sure they follow the technical guidance to identify and mitigate RAAC, as required. As the hon. Lady has seen in the NHS, we have moved the affected hospitals into the new hospitals programme. More generally, this Government have invested record sums in defence—the £24 billion at the last spending review is the single biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

Philip Davies: It is vital that we retain, recruit and protect our prison officers, so will the Prime Minister agree to prevent any prisoner who assaults a prison officer from being released early from jail? This simple measure would be very popular with prisoner officers and the public, and—you never know, Mr Speaker—it might even find favour with the parties opposite, which normally think that the only people who should be in prison are those who misgender people.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to say that prisoners who are violent towards people working and living in prisons will and should face the full consequences of their actions. I am pleased that the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the maximum penalty, to up to two years’ imprisonment, for those who assault emergency workers—that includes prison officers. The Ministry of Justice will continue to press for charges for more serious offences, such as ABH—assault occasioning actual bodily harm—where appropriate.

Sarah Owen: At the weekend, seven global economic powers came together to agree a monumental trade agreement. They included India, the United States and the European Union, but not the UK. Did the Prime Minister choose not to sign up because, presumably, he thought it was a bad deal, or was the UK left out altogether because he has as weak a reputation on the world stage as he does at home?

Rishi Sunak: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was here for the statement on Monday, but I rather assume she was not. What she describes was not a trade deal so, first, she should get her facts right. As I explained on Monday, there are lots of different ways in which countries will participate in solving international issues. At the same summit she mentions, we announced a record investment in the green climate fund—the single biggest investment by this country to help with international climate finance. That was warmly welcomed by countries at the summit, which can see that the UK is taking a leadership role and helping countries to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: This week, we were hit by the devastating news that all Wilko stores would be closing, meaning the loss of 12,500 jobs. Bassetlaw and Worksop are the home of Wilko’s headquarters and a distribution centre, where 1,500 jobs are set to go. Wilko has been mismanaged for years. In the past decade, more than £77 million has been paid out to shareholders, and recently the HQ was sold for £48 million before being leased back. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents, and all those nationally who are affected by the demise of Wilko, that he and the Government will do everything in their power to help support people into jobs and make sure that their redundancy packages and pensions are protected, and that we will take whatever action is available to us to hold the ownership to account?

Rishi Sunak: As my hon. Friend knows, some of the topics he raises will be commercial matters for the company, but I do know that this is a concerning time for workers at Wilko. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is keeping close to developments and we have already started supporting those who have been made redundant, and we stand ready to support others to the fullest of our abilities.

Lilian Greenwood: The head of the Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has said that the UK must
“forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”.
So why are the Government still pushing ahead with further cuts, of 10,000 troops, to the British Army?

Rishi Sunak: Again, this is the Government who have put a record amount into our armed forces: £24 billion. We remain the second largest investor in our defence in NATO. As we saw at the NATO summit, other countries look to us for leadership. How the armed forces allocate that record funding is a matter for the chiefs, to make sure that we have the capabilities we need to meet the threats of today. That is a decision that they will make and we will back them, but no one can doubt our commitment to funding properly the armed forces and ensuring that we keep this country safe.

Richard Graham: The Prime Minister has rightly said that democracies such as the UK, not authoritarian regimes, should lead the fight on global challenges such as development and climate change. Given that the links between failed regimes, climate change and the number of asylum seekers are growing, will my right hon. Friend ensure that doing  development democratically is a key theme in the White Paper on international development? Will he also visit the Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s Garden of Democracy exhibition here in Parliament, which highlights our promotion of democratic values abroad?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the exhibition in Portcullis House. Members will have heard his invitation. We are consulting widely  on the detail of the White Paper on international development and what it should say, and specifically on the role of democracy in development. I encourage all interested organisations and individuals to share their ideas through the public consultation.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just say thank you to Sir John Benger, in his final Prime Minister’s questions, for his loyal service to the House? We do appreciate it. Thank you, Sir John.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Steve Reed: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on combined sewer overflows.

Therese Coffey: With the usual courtesies, I welcome the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) to his place.
I restate that I have always been clear that the current volume of sewage discharged by water companies is totally unacceptable, and they must act urgently to improve their performance so that they meet Government and public expectations. I confirm that the Department, the Environment Agency and Ofwat have received the information notices and will, of course, comply with their requests. We do not agree with the Office for Environmental Protection’s assessment of our compliance with the law, and the House should note that the OEP itself has said:
“We recognise that a great deal is already being done to tackle the issue of untreated sewage discharges, and we welcome the intent of Government measures such as the Plan for Water and storm overflow targets, as well as commitments to increase investment.”
The public are rightly disgusted by sewage discharges from storm overflows, and so are the Government, which is why we have taken more action than any other Government on the issue. I remind hon. Members that the European Commission took the Labour Government to court in 2009 for breaches of the law. Subsequently, we have started the construction of the Thames tideway tunnel, which is due to be completed next year. It is taking a decade to construct.
However, a decade ago, the Conservative-led Government took action and started requiring the monitoring of storm overflows. That work will be completed by the end of this year. It is owing to that that the scale of the problem has been unveiled. I note that in Wales, which is run by a Labour Government, discharge occurrences are much higher—38 times a year for outflows versus 23 in England.
The Environment Act 2021 included new powers and responsibilities, which increased understanding. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. That led to some of the action that we are taking.
We have been repeatedly clear that water companies’ reliance on overflows is unacceptable. They must significantly reduce how much sewage they discharge as a priority. We are holding them to account, and that is also true of our regulators. I remind the House that active investigations, including an active criminal investigation, of water companies are under way.
We welcome the opportunity to set out the scale of the action that the Government are taking. No Government in history have done more to tackle the issue. Last year, we launched the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. Our strict targets will lead to the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills, and we require water companies to deliver the largest ever infrastructure programme in water company history.
I am therefore happy to answer today’s urgent question, but I say, yet again, that the Conservative Government are cleaning up the mess left by a Labour Government, and we will get on with the job.

Steve Reed: Nothing more graphically illustrates 13 years of failed Tory government than the tide of raw sewage swilling down our rivers, into our lakes and washing up on our beaches. The Conservatives cut the Environment Agency’s budget in half. That led to drastic cuts in monitoring, enforcement and prosecution, which led to a drastic increase in illegal discharges, trashing nature, damaging tourism and putting kids’ health at risk.
This Government are up to their necks in a sewage crisis of their own making. And now, in an absolutely unprecedented move, the Office for Environmental Protection tells us that the Government may have broken the law themselves in allowing all of this. It identifies possible failures to comply with environmental law by the Secretary of State’s own Department, the Environment Agency and Ofwat.
This Government have broken the entire regulatory system. They enabled this scandal, but did we hear a word of apology just now? No, we did not. There was only complacency. Labour wants severe and automatic fines for every illegal discharge to pay for a tougher regulation and enforcement regime. Why will the Government not do that? We want mandatory monitoring of every outlet so that the public know where the discharges are happening. Why will the Government not agree to that?
Can the Secretary of State tell us which Ministers signed off what the OEP calls
“a misinterpretation of the law”
to allow more frequent sewage discharges without risk of sanction? That is a Government-sanctioned green light to pollute. Was it her? What action will she now take to put an end to this appalling situation, bring the water companies to heel and clean up our waterways? Will she publish the correspondence between the OEP and her Department if she has nothing to hide?
Finally, if the Secretary of State’s Department is found to have broken the law, will she do the right thing and resign? The Prime Minister would not tolerate raw sewage in his private swimming pool, so why is he happy to treat the British countryside as an open sewer?

Therese Coffey: The risk for the hon. Gentleman is that he has already soiled his own reputation by failing to acknowledge that the investigation that led to that court case, which is referred to in the information notice, took place under a Labour Government. On Sky last night, I believe it was a former Labour Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who basically said that he knew sewage discharges were happening, and what did the Labour Government do about it? They did not do anything. In 2006, they set out a consultation basically allowing self-monitoring by the water companies. Frankly, the Labour Government did sweet FA and we are cleaning it up now.
Let us have a look at the timescale that has been mentioned for the situation that led to the ruling by  the Court of Justice of the European Union. Things have not been done in Wales, where there is a Labour  Government, so there is no change in policy there. Meanwhile, the Conservative Government have got on with imposing unlimited penalties on water companies. That is why so many powers were put into the Environment Act 2023, and regulators are now using them. There was hardly any monitoring in 2010, thanks to Labour—the Scottish National party does not have a leg to stand on either—and it was the Conservatives who got the monitoring going. Where Labour has weakened monitoring, we have increased it.
On the assertions that the hon. Gentleman made about budgets, he should be aware that the purpose of the permits, and of the fees that go with the permits, is to pay for those regular inspections. Government funding, which we increased last year, is used when enforcement action needs to be taken, and that includes taking companies to court. That is why there is an active criminal investigation under way now.
Frankly, it was the Conservatives who got the monitoring going and unveiled the scale of this, while the Labour Government looked the other way. I have no confidence in the plans that Labour has put forward. We are already getting on with many of the actions that it talks about, and that is why we will sort out the mess that the Labour Government left behind.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can we be more moderate in the language that we use? I do not think that it has been appropriate, and hopefully we will hear no more of it.
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Robert Goodwill: We all understand the long-term challenge of storm water overflows where heavy rainfall is inundating the system. Over time, we will see more storm water tanks, such as the 4 million litre tank that Yorkshire Water installed in Scarborough, but there can be no excuse for discharges when the weather is dry. Some are down to human error or to mechanical failure, but many are down just to under-capacity in the system. As we address the problem, can we focus on the dry discharges and ensure that investment goes where it will have the most effect: where the most concentrated sewage goes into waterways?

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend is right to point out some of the investment that is under way, but the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which I anticipate will receive nearly £60 billion of investment from the water companies, will prioritise where the biggest issues are. I think that is the right thing to do. I am also mindful of other potential environmental responsibilities, particularly in areas of conservation. We will continue to ensure that, as part of the plan, we get on and get into the detail. We are already doing quite a lot of work with the water companies, holding them to account and ensuring that they get on and spend the money.

Ben Bradshaw: Along with the water companies, one of the main sources of water pollution in the south-west is the minority of livestock farmers who put silage, run-off from silage and slurry into local waterways, yet the Government have radically cut the number of inspections and there have been hardly any prosecutions. Why?

Therese Coffey: The right hon. Gentleman is a former Minister in DEFRA. I am not aware of what inspections were done when he was in office. What I do know is that we increased funding for farm inspections; my understanding is that there were about 4,000 last year. The approach is targeted. Sometimes farmers are not doing it intentionally. We are helping in different ways, including by increasing the funding for slurry infrastructure. Through the environmental land management schemes we are increasing incentives to help with things such as barrier strips and buffer strips so that stock is kept further away. We are actively working with farmers. We want them to be able to do the right thing. Enforcement is undertaken—he will be aware of a recent case in Herefordshire—and we will continue to allow our regulators to make decisions on criminal investigations independently, rather than the Government dictating them.

Kelly Tolhurst: I welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this area. Despite what has been said today, we have to recognise that this is the first Government to take the bull by the horns and actually do something about illegally discharged sewage, which has been happening for decades. I have witnessed it myself. I have recently been speaking to Southern Water about a river that my constituency happens to be near. Although I recognise that Southern Water is doing its very best to do small trials around land drainage, frankly it is not doing enough quickly enough. Will the Secretary of State outline the powers of the Environment Agency that she is strengthening in order to fine companies such as Southern Water, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) said, are using opportunities in dry weather to dump sewage where that really should not be happening?

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend is right to point out that we have taken action and given powers to the regulator. A very successful prosecution happened; I believe Southern Water was fined £90 million in a recent case. We need to continue to work to get effective action. I have complete confidence in the Environment Agency in getting on with the detailed work that we need to do to ensure that the water companies stick to the law, and we continue to strengthen the law, including through the unlimited penalties that this House voted for. Actually, I think it was only Government Members who went through the Division Lobby to pass those penalties.

Cat Smith: The Secretary of State will know of the concerns from her own mailbag, as I certainly do from mine. My constituents are in touch with me week in, week out with concerns about the River Lune or the beach at Fleetwood. My constituents and I would like to know what steps the Secretary of State will take to ensure that when water companies break the law they will be punished and brought to justice, and will not do it again?

Therese Coffey: I am conscious of the breakdown near Fleetwood earlier this year. To give some credit to United Utilities, it worked at pace to try to fix the mechanical failure that had happened. We now have legislation that allows the Environment Agency to apply unlimited penalties. She will be aware that a live criminal investigation by the Environment Agency is under way  against water companies. It will then be for the courts to decide the scale of the fines. We will continue to ensure that penalties are applied and clearer instructions are given. We have had discussions with the Environment Agency. We need to get the problem fixed, but water companies should not try to do this on the cheap, and think that it is cheaper just to pay a penalty than actually sort out the problem.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I sat on the Bill Committee for the Environment Act 2021, which created the OEP. I also sit on the Environmental Audit Committee, which interviewed the now chair of the OEP. It was Government Members who introduced the OEP, enabling her to do this work to find out the scale of the problem. When the report refers to the Government, it is not being party political; it is referring to all Governments for the past 20 years or more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to keep looking at these reports, ripping off the plaster that we have started to rip off, and holding to the fire the feet of all the polluters that caused these problems in the first place?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we left the European Union, we recognised the need to have suitable scrutiny, which is what is in place. Clearly the OEP has not come to a conclusion about breaking the law. That is why it has asked for more information. That is its right and entitlement. That is what we legislated to allow it to do, and we will continue to comply with that. Meanwhile, it will not distract us from getting on with our plan for water and holding water companies to account.

Richard Burgon: Water companies have dumped sewage more than 1 million times over the past three years. Now we find out that instead of standing up to the water companies, the Government seem to have been complicit in letting them break the law. Beyond the Government’s own failures, has this sewage crisis not been driven by under-investment, while £72 billion was handed out to shareholders since privatisation? Is it not time to put an end to this racket and restore water as a proper public service?

Therese Coffey: I understand that the hon. Member comes from the very left wing of the Labour party, and that that will continue to be his mantra. I understand, however, that it is not the position of his party to nationalise water, because it recognises that about £190 billion-worth of investment has gone into water infrastructure since privatisation.
Clearly the scale of what needs to be done in the next few years is considerably greater than we have seen before. At the same time, back in 2006 we had one of the biggest dividends going, and the gearing of Thames Water was changed. Frankly, the Labour Government then did not do anything about it. That is key to one of the situations that we face at the moment, but meanwhile we will continue to get on. I am confident that with the Thames tideway tunnel opening next year we will have good sewage channelling and will be able to deal with that in London. The work continues, including things such as nature-based management practices, in order to help in Yorkshire as well. I know that his water company is looking into that too.

Richard Foord: 19 July last year was the hottest day on record in the UK. Temperatures exceeded 40°C in some places during a dry spell, yet water companies that responded to a BBC investigation admitted to so-called “dry spills” of sewage that day. The Environment Secretary was reported as saying that it “does seem extraordinary”, but that the Environment Agency “is the regulator”. Given that it was the hottest day, when people were inadvertently bathing in sewage, why does the Environment Secretary wash her hands of it?

Therese Coffey: I am conscious of the investigation that the BBC undertook. The Environment Agency and the Department do not agree with its assessment of the data. That does not mean, of course, that there have not been sewage spills on dry days. That is why it is part of the investigation. It is part of fixing the problem, and we will continue to do that.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State knows Gill Rider from history—the chair of Pennon Group, which owns South West Water. I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, but surely the time has come to get these companies and their leadership under control. South West Water is a disgrace. It is leaking. It is treating its customers with utter contempt. Secretary of State, please sit on these companies and make them do the job that they are meant to, which is to stop this now.

Therese Coffey: Unlimited penalties are available to the Environment Agency and there is already a criminal investigation under way. I know my hon. Friend has secured a Westminster Hall debate next week to discuss it in further detail, and my hon. Friend the water Minister will reply substantially to the many detailed points that I am sure he will raise.

Emma Lewell-Buck: It was my constituent Mr Latimer who was responsible for the law change stating that sewage should only be discharged during exceptional circumstances. He knows, as we all know, that it is this Government who are actively enabling the water companies and regulators to get away with dumping sewage into our rivers and our oceans. Why will the Secretary of State not admit that under this Government, sewage dumping is no longer the exception but the rule?

Therese Coffey: Because the hon. Lady’s assertion is simply not true.

Anna Firth: Rather than just scaremongering, which is what we are hearing again from the Opposition, could we have a focus please on the quality of our waters? In Leigh-on-Sea and Southend West, the quality of our water has gone up from 76% in 2010 to 93% and the vast majority of our beaches are rated good or excellent. Will my right hon. Friend applaud the work of local group the Bluetits Chill Swimmers, run by Daniella Bee, and Philip Miller of Adventure Island, who are assisting me in having regular sewage summits with Anglian Water? We have extracted a promise from Anglian Water to eliminate 75% of use of our combined storm overflows five years ahead of the Government’s target. Is this local action not the sort of thing we should be doing—not just scaremongering?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right to praise the activity happening in her constituency, and the people of Southend should be congratulated on electing her to this House, because she is an avid campaigner for them. She recommends her part of the world for swimming due to the designated beaches, and I could do the same in my own constituency. I remind the House that when the Conservatives came in to power in 2010, only half our swimming beaches and designated bathing waters were deemed excellent, thanks to whatever happened under Labour. Now it is more than three in four, which shows the progress we have made right around the country.

Barry Sheerman: I ask the Secretary of State this pertinent question: what does she say to the senior executive at Yorkshire Water, who, when I complained about the quality of the water in some of the rivers in Yorkshire, said, “Mr Sheerman, don’t you realise that there is no river in our country that is fit to swim in?” Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State’s pathetic performance today, and her use of the most vulgar language I have heard in this Chamber in all my years in this House, show that she is out of her depth, that she is incompetent and that she should resign immediately?

Therese Coffey: I look forward to the election in Huddersfield—the hon. Gentleman should look at some of his own speeches. I do not know on what basis he has made that assertion, quoting the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, but that is not the case—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can always contact me directly to give me the quotation and the source of the quotation. I look forward to receiving it, and I will take the water company’s chief executive to task if that is truly what she said.

James Wild: Despite all we have heard from Labour, is it not the reality that in Government Labour did absolutely nothing on this issue, with no monitoring in place, and that it is this Government, as the OEP recognises, who are sorting the problem through the plan for water, through record investment, and through monitoring, improving waters in North West Norfolk and across the country?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he has a coastal constituency as well and will know the continuing work to improve the quality of our designated bathing waters and our waters more broadly. There have been more stringent standards applied over the last decade. We continue to work to try to improve that and we will continue to get on with the job.

Kerry McCarthy: The Secretary of State seems to have a weird amnesia about the past decade or so, so that there is a big leap from Labour being in government to her suddenly being in front of us today. I hope she does remember the many times, whether in the Environmental Audit Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee or the Environment Bill Committee, that I asked her about making sure the Office for Environmental Protection really had teeth, was independent and was respected by Government. I am concerned that there are already signs that the Government are trying to undermine the work of the OEP. Will she assure us that she will respect the conclusions that it comes to and act accordingly?

Therese Coffey: I will say that we set up the OEP, we will comply with the information notice it has requested and then we will see where its decision goes from that. It is important that that institution continues to have the freedom we gave it; we will continue to respect that and to comply with its notices, as set out under the statute.

Matthew Offord: The water Minister and I regularly visit a beach that has been subject to several environmental spills this August. When I checked at the site, it was a storm overflow and not a combined sewage outlet. Given that there was not enough rainfall to constitute an exceptional amount, can the Secretary of State advise me why the Environment Agency has not taken enforcement action against South West Water and all the other water companies that are spilling sewage when there are no exceptional circumstances?

Therese Coffey: I understand from my hon. Friend the water Minister that the Environment Agency is currently investigating the source of the pollution to help with its investigation.

Tulip Siddiq: The right hon. Lady’s Department issued a statement saying that it does not
“agree with the OEP’s initial interpretations,”
but will
“continue to work constructively with the OEP on this issue.”
That seems like a contradiction to me. How does the Secretary of State plan to work constructively with the OEP when her Department’s statement demonstrates a complete disregard for environmental law?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Lady is incorrect. We absolutely respect the law—we introduced the Environment Act. We can disagree with initial assertions, but we will continue to ensure that we provide the information the OEP has requested.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for the renewed determination to bring about improvement—it is clear that we need it. When we voted on this issue in the House, we were given assurances that these incidents would not take place. It is clear that, while officials may not agree with this investigation, there is still a real cause for concern. How does the Secretary of State intend to alleviate those concerns and, more importantly, ensure that sewage releases are regulated and safe? I make this suggestion very respectfully: stopping the dividends to the chief executives and directors would be a method to encourage improvements by the water companies, who seem reluctant to make them.

Therese Coffey: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is a Member for a Northern Ireland constituency. The OEP’s remit extends to Northern Ireland, although not to the Welsh Labour Government or the Scottish SNP Government. Investigations can be undertaken—that is what we legislate for in this House—and unlimited penalties can be applied. That is true in England. We will continue to make sure that we do what we can not only to reduce these challenges, but to fix the long-term issues. We know that in London, for example, the Thames tideway tunnel has taken a decade—that is the scale of the issue. The fact that we know about the scale of the issue right now is due to the Conservative Government having taken action, while the Labour Government looked the other way.

Samantha Dixon: The last time I asked about the dumping of sewage in our rivers in this Chamber, the Prime Minister agreed with me that it is absolutely unacceptable. However, the OEP’s investigation is a scandalous revelation that shows the entire water and regulatory system is broken. What does the Secretary of State think should happen to companies, regulatory bodies and Government Departments that knowingly break the law?

Therese Coffey: We set up the OEP and it has the powers, thanks to this Conservative Government, to get on with the role as it sees fit. It is doing so—it has started the investigation and asked for more information, and we will comply with that. I say to the hon. Lady, as I said at the start of my response to the urgent question, that this is completely unacceptable by the water companies. That is why we are taking action and getting on with the job. We do not need lessons from Labour, who looked away and did nothing. They are the people who were taken to court by the European Commission for failure, failure, failure—thanks to Labour.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the Secretary of State is under great pressure today—she seems to be out of her depth in quite shallow water—but she misquoted me. In a question I asked a few moments ago, I said a “senior executive of Yorkshire Water”; I did not say “the chief executive of Yorkshire Water”. That is on the record and Hansard will show it. I want an apology from the Secretary of State.

Nigel Evans: That stands on the record. [Interruption.] Secretary of State, do you wish to respond?

Therese Coffey: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that the hon. Gentleman said “the chief executive”. I hear now that he said a “senior executive”. But the point still stands: provide the quotation, provide the source, and I will take it up with that executive and the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, because, frankly, that is not acceptable.

Nigel Evans: Thank you very much, Secretary of State, for responding to the urgent question. We will now move on.

Asbestos (National Register)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Percy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a national register of asbestos present in non-domestic premises and of the condition of that asbestos; and for connected purposes.
May I begin by thanking Mesothelioma UK for all the fantastic work it does to support those living with the asbestos-related cancer? As well as providing access to mesothelioma clinical nurse specialists across the UK, that charity offers a range of support services and dedicated research to help patients live better and longer lives. I found its work invaluable a few years ago in this place, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and I were trying to get the Government into the sensible and correct place on the issue of compensation.
I represent an area with many former steelworkers, power station workers, dockers and a few miners, so respiratory industrial disease is an issue that I know well, including from my close family. Increasingly, the disease is not restricted to roles that involved directly installing material with asbestos; it also affects those who work in buildings with asbestos, such as teachers. Indeed, teachers are more likely to die from mesothelioma than the general public—sadly, I have heard examples of that from my constituents. A 2019 Government survey found that 80.9% of participating schools had asbestos on their estate, and although most had a plan for dealing with it, that figure speaks for itself.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), who, apart from being an excellent champion for her constituents, has done incredible work leading up to this 10-minute rule motion, including her recent Westminster Hall debate on asbestos in the workplace.
As most people will be aware, asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was used extensively in buildings in the UK and around the world between the 1950s and 1980s. It can be found in ceiling tiles, pipe insulation, flooring, textured paint and boilers, and it is often mixed with other materials, which makes determining its presence even more complex. In fact, asbestos is one of three materials considered so hazardous that they require their own regulations, the others being radiation and lead. Lead and radiation are tightly controlled, and although there has been a lot of work over the years to tighten regulations on asbestos—and, indeed, to ban it—many would say that it remains the poor relation of the three materials in public policy terms.
The scale of the problem cannot be underestimated. The Health and Safety Executive has said that between 210,000 and 400,000 buildings in the UK contain asbestos. Other estimates suggest 6 million tonnes of asbestos are spread across 1.5 million buildings in this country. Asbestos is, of course, the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK. HSE estimates that more than 5,000 people die from asbestos-related cancers each year, of whom half die from mesothelioma.
Governments of both sides have sought to address that issue. We have had bans on import, use, manufacture and supply. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012  provide a framework for working with asbestos in non-domestic premises. The regulations are welcome, as they place a requirement on a duty holder to assess the presence, condition and exposure risk of asbestos in non-domestic premises. The duty holder is required to maintain an up-to-date register and share it with anyone who may be at risk of exposure or of disturbing asbestos-containing materials.
However, as welcome as those regulations and other interventions may be, there remain too many new mesothelioma cases in the UK, and there is a clear trend of rising cases among those who have worked in buildings with asbestos, rather than among those who worked directly with asbestos products and materials. A report by Alpha Tracker on the condition of asbestos in schools, hospitals and homes found that more than half of 1.3 million samples found to contain the material were already damaged; that 20% of asbestos-containing materials in hospitals and healthcare settings had high damage; and that 55% of asbestos in schools was in poor condition. We must therefore ask if the current approach is working and sufficient.
The UK National Asbestos Register, a new social enterprise established to help management and duty holders to manage the material, has identified five common failings in the current system. First, there are communication failures. Contractors rarely see an asbestos register, or records are mislaid or difficult to access. A contractor undertaking what seem like minor works, for example, may be unaware there are ACMs in that building and that they might disturb them.
Secondly, information is provided in a format that is difficult to understand, poorly arranged or too lengthy, meaning that documents are often incomprehensible. Thirdly, registers are not updated as work is undertaken, meaning that information is out of date, or the information is held on different databases. As contractors change, information can be lost.
Fourthly, the current system often results in there being no evidence of compliance or confirmation that any register has been accessed and read by a contractor or anybody undertaking works. Fifthly, although asbestos registers contain the same basic data, they are arranged in different formats, which makes them more difficult to understand. Andrew Paten, one of the founders of the UK National Asbestos Register, says:
“A standard, common format would allow everyone to become familiar with them and competent in their use, regardless of the property.”
As highlighted in the Work and Pensions Committee’s “The Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management” report, and in Mesothelioma UK’s “Don’t Let the Dust Settle” campaign, the introduction of a national asbestos register would go a long way towards solving those issues, and is necessary if the management-in-situ approach of recent decades, which makes good sense in many ways, as opposed to blanket removal, is to be maintained. I believe that a national register of the type proposed is absolutely crucial.
I recognise that questions and concerns will be raised about how such a national register would operate. It would bring together all the existing information on  buildings with ACMs into one coherent database—as I have said, it is currently piecemeal and fragmented—not only making it easier for duty holders to record and maintain information about asbestos in their buildings, but making the information more easily accessible for those who require it.
There would be wider benefits to a national register. It would help to support a longer-term strategic approach to managing asbestos. If we have learned one thing in recent weeks in respect of concrete, it is that access to information and clear data is absolutely necessary when managing any risk in a building accessed by the public.
Furthermore, a national register would increase public awareness of the harmful effects of asbestosis, something that Mesothelioma UK believes is crucial to protecting future generations and for better treatment and care for those who suffer from asbestos-related conditions. Such a register would also ensure that the Health and Safety Executive could use that database to better target and improve its own enforcement efforts in this area. As I have said, recent issues with school building conditions in relation to concrete have shown us that we need to be proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to managing risks of this kind.
At the moment, there is no simple and cost-effective way to reverse our legacy of using these materials in non-residential buildings, but we cannot ignore the fact that we have a growing number of mesothelioma cases among those who have worked not just with, but within, buildings that contain those materials. That is why better asbestos management is needed, and a national register is key to providing that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Percy, Jane Hunt, Tracey Crouch, Sir Stephen Timms, Martin Docherty-Hughes, Ian Lavery, Holly Mumby-Croft and Ben Lake present the Bill.
Andrew Percy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 354).

PROCUREMENT BILL [LORDS]:  PROGRAMME (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Procurement Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 January 2023 (Procurement Bill [Lords] (Programme)).

Consideration of Lords Message

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

Schedule 7 - Discretionary exclusion grounds

Alex Burghart: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 102B.
It is an honour once again to open the debate on this important Bill, which I am delighted to say is now so close to receiving Royal Assent. The Bill is a key Brexit benefit, delivering a simpler, more transparent procurement framework that will benefit small businesses and meet the needs of UK suppliers and contracting authorities.
Colleagues in the Chamber will also, I hope, remember that, when the Bill was last debated in this House, we offered significant new measures to protect the UK’s public procurement supply chain from threats to national security. Those included new grounds to add suppliers to the debarment list for particular types of contracts that will allow us to ban risky suppliers from bidding for those contracts; the creation of a new national security unit for procurement that will provide dedicated resources in the Cabinet Office to scrutinise national security risks in procurement; and a commitment to publish a timetable for removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China from Government Department sensitive sites. Earlier this week in the other place, we went further: my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe provided an official clarification of the definition of sensitive sites and committed to an annual written report detailing progress. I am sure this House will welcome our additional agreements and agree that they demonstrate the Government’s unwavering dedication to tackle these issues seriously.
I will deal today with one amendment that the other place sent back to this House, on the subject of organ harvesting. Let me begin by saying that I think all sides of this House are in complete agreement that organ harvesting is a dreadful practice that has no place in our supply chains. The question before us today is whether Lords amendment 102B is the right or necessary one to make, given other provisions in the Bill. In Committee in this House, the Government removed a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers engaged in forced organ harvesting. The other place has subsequently proposed an amendment in lieu, with some modifications of the original amendment. This new version of the Lords amendment does not cover unethical activities relating to human tissue; it does, however, still cover forced organ harvesting and dealing in devices, equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.
I urge this House to reject this amendment for a number of reasons. First, as I have said previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as, crucially, organ harvesting is already dealt with under existing provisions in the Procurement Bill. Under the Bill, any suppliers failing to adhere to existing ethical or professional standards that apply in their industry, including those relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, could be excluded on the grounds of professional misconduct. It is worth adding at this point that, as far  as His Majesty’s Government are aware, no supplier in the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. This means that it is very unlikely that any of our public money is being spent on that terrible practice. As noted above, however, if such a situation did arise, the exclusion for professional misconduct would apply.
Secondly, the amendment has significant consequences for contracting authorities. It extends to suppliers
“dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting.”
That is an incredibly broad provision that would be extremely difficult for contracting authorities and suppliers to verify in respect of all supply chains and customer bases. If there were any doubt about whether that discretionary ground applied, local authorities or NHS trusts would need to undertake significant due diligence to satisfy themselves that the entire supply chain and the end user of all goods provided by suppliers—potentially including oxygen masks, IT equipment and so on—were not used in these terrible practices. It would mean that a small business tendering for Government contracts would need to understand where their customers might be using or selling their products, to enable them to genuinely and legitimately confirm that they were not subject to this ground.
More generally, the amendment would create excessive bureaucracy, requiring each and every supplier bidding across the thousands of contracts awarded by contracting authorities each year to declare that they are not guilty of forced organ harvesting, when we know that there is no evidence of that horrific practice occurring in UK public sector supply chains. We believe that such a burden would be unjustified when the Bill already covers this issue.
Thirdly, the Government are already taking steps to tackle the issue of organ harvesting. We have been explicit that the overseas organ trade, or complicity with it, will not be tolerated. For example, by virtue of the Health and Care Act 2022, it is already an offence to travel outside of the UK to purchase an organ. In addition, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting in China, and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations and international partners on this very important issue. This Bill creates new rules for suppliers and contracting authorities that will hopefully stay on the statute book for many decades to come.

Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise for being slightly delayed, Mr Deputy Speaker: I did not see this debate pop up on the annunciator. I rushed to ask a question about this topic. Forgive me.
On the issue of organ harvesting, I understand the difficulties with this particular amendment, so while I am instinctively supportive of what the Lords are trying to do, I understand the Government’s arguments. However, there is a way to tighten this up. Organ harvesting is taking place in China—it is a regular occurrence—but I would not rely too much on declarations from supply chains. We have already unearthed the problem that supply chains are under no obligation to do the due diligence that would enable them to know  whether companies, or the people they are trading with, have any involvement with organ harvesting. Tightening that up would be great.
On that basis, does my hon. Friend accept that we now have to make sure that China is on the enhanced tier of the foreign agents registration scheme? That would really put power in the Government’s hands to make sure that supply chains were properly checked. Will he say to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to all those concerned that it is time we did so? China is a genuine threat to us, industrially as well as politically.

Alex Burghart: My right hon. Friend is an expert on these matters. I thank him for his intervention—I have to say that I was quite surprised that he was not sitting behind me when I stood up in the first place, but I am delighted to see him in the Chamber now. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard his remarks and will consider them carefully. This is obviously a procurement Bill, and we are doing our best to create the post-Brexit framework that will give us an enhanced ability to improve all aspects of procurement in our society.
In Committee and on Report in this House, we thought it was necessary to tighten up national security considerations to make sure that foreign hostile actors could not get involved in public procurement. We have—as my right hon. Friend knows, because he gave us good advice—taken steps to make sure that we remove technologies that come from those hostile actors from sensitive sites. On the broader point he made at the end of his comments, that is beyond my pay grade, but I have no doubt that those above my pay grade have heard what he has said.
This is an excellent Bill. It is a tribute to the officials who have worked on it and to my predecessors who worked on it in the Cabinet Office. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment made by the other House and support the Government’s motion.

Nigel Evans: I call the shadow Minister.

Nia Griffith: Coming in as I do at the tail end of the passage of this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for all her work on the Bill, and to say that I look forward to working constructively with the Minister.
Turning to the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, we can all agree that forced organ harvesting—a practice involving the removal of organs from a living prisoner that results in their death or near death—is abhorrent. The debate on this Government motion is about whether there should be a specific clause in the Bill to make it clear that we do not want to see a single penny of taxpayers’ money go to any company linked to this practice, or whether that is adequately covered by the concept of professional misconduct that can be used against serious unethical behaviour.
We heard powerful speeches in the other place from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who made compelling arguments for the inclusion  in the Bill of the measure against forced organ harvesting and provided evidence of the practice taking place in China. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for all they have done to highlight the issue.
Furthermore, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region:
“Allegations of…torture…including forced medical treatment…are credible”.
This is a very current issue, and we would like to see specific mention of it in the Bill.
First, including a specific reference to forced organ harvesting in the Bill will highlight the issue and send a message to potential supply companies to make specific checks that they are not inadvertently in any way associated with the abhorrent business of forced organ harvesting. Secondly, although the Minister has said that forced organ harvesting is already covered by the ground of professional misconduct, which includes serious unethical behaviour, specific mention of it in the Bill will highlight to those undertaking procurement to be particularly vigilant in respect of any potential association of supply companies with this appalling practice. Thirdly, making specific mention of forced organ harvesting helps to send a clear message to China and anywhere else it may occur that the practice will not be tolerated and that there will be economic consequences.
The Minister has objected to having specific mention of forced organ harvesting because it means additional paperwork, and we all want to cut down the amount of paperwork that companies have to deal with. However, I would suggest in this case that a small amount of additional work is well worth it if it sends a strong message of condemnation, strengthens awareness of the issue and hastens the end of this abhorrent practice. The Opposition support the position taken by the other place of including the measure on forced organ harvesting in the Bill, and will therefore vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Nigel Evans: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsty Blackman: It is a pleasure to be here talking about Lords amendments for the second day in a row. I am glad to see the Procurement Bill making progress and getting towards becoming legislation. As the Minister has commented on a number of occasions, we have not got to the place that he wanted in relation to his conversations with the Scottish Government about the Bill. To be fair, we have also not got to the place we wanted for the Bill. Neither of us is entirely happy with the position that has been reached, but I do appreciate the work that has been done to communicate between the Governments on this. Both tried to find a compromise solution, but it was just impossible on this occasion to come to one that we were both happy with.
Specifically on the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B on forced organ harvesting, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has laid out a number of very important points and I do not want to go over those. The Minister has said there is an absence of evidence that there is any forced organ harvesting in any of the supply chains involved in UK procurement, and I do appreciate that that is case.  However, if the Government are able to find out that there is an absence of evidence on this, surely it should not be beyond the means of those procuring or of companies supplying or buying things that are bidding for Government procurement contracts to find out that their supply chains are not involved. If the Government are able to find out these things, surely those companies should.
The point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli about raising awareness is incredibly important. We have worked very hard with companies through the changes in various Acts, including improving companies’ corporate social responsibility and requiring them to make modern slavery statements. We have worked hard to ensure that companies are taking their social responsibilities seriously, and I therefore do not think that this measure is unreasonable. It would not apply to all companies; it applies only to companies bidding for Government contracts. Surely we want companies bidding for Government contracts to ensure that they are as within the law as possible, upholding human rights and demonstrating corporate social responsibility. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask those companies to look into their supply chains and consider whether they are financially supporting organisations or companies that are involved in forced organ harvesting. I think it is reasonable for us to ask them to spend a little bit of time doing this if they expect to take on Government contracts.

Iain Duncan Smith: Actually, it is simpler even than that. In America, first, it is an offence for a company to have falsified, knowingly or unknowingly, its declarations on supply chains. Secondly, the US Government use companies such as Oritain that use criminal science to test where products were made and whether declarations were correct, and they are therefore able to enforce them. What is happening is that those supply chains are now being rigorously declared by American companies that do not wish to lose Government business. It would not be too much to ask the Government to do spot checks, using such companies that are available to them, and I have recommended it to the Foreign Office, not that that really matters.

Kirsty Blackman: I think the right hon. Member makes a reasonable and proportionate suggestion. Although we disagree on lots of things, I am very surprised to find myself agreeing with him for the second time this week on this. I do appreciate his suggestion, and I hope those on his Front Bench are listening to the advice he has given.
I am not going to test the House’s patience by dragging this out. We will be voting with the Labour party against the Government’s motion to disagree, because we believe that the more stringent controls are something it is absolutely reasonable for us to ask of companies. This is not for all companies, as I have said, but just for those that hope to get Government contracts.

Marie Rimmer: In this week of all weeks, the House needs to show that our democracy is strong and that we are not intimidated by other nations. The Chinese Communist party has shown that it holds our democracy in contempt. Today we have an opportunity to put tough talk into action.
Forced organ harvesting is a systemic trade that is taking place on an industrial scale in China. Up to 100,000 of its citizens are butchered each year for their organs. This is a state-sponsored crime against humanity. The two or three organs harvested from a healthy young adult are worth over £500,000. Evidence of this crime has been extensively investigated by the China and Uyghur tribunals chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, the former lead prosecutor at The Hague. At the tribunals, evidence was heard of systematic medical testing of thousands of prisoners of conscience, allowing the oppressive regime to create an organ bank.
I have spoken extensively on the horrors that have occurred due to forced organ harvesting in previous stages of the Bill, so now I will address some of the concerns that the Government expressed in the other place when opposing the amendment. The Government claim that forced organ harvesting will be covered by existing provisions of the Bill. Certain conduct will absolutely not be covered by the existing provisions on professional misconduct. Supply chains can be complex, and improper conduct may often be one step too far removed from the crime for professional misconduct elements to be made out. Trying to cover all the different ethical and professional misconduct regulations across a multitude of industries is not practical. Only by having a specific provision for forced organ harvesting will we ensure that British taxpayers’ money is not funding this horrific trade. Otherwise, it will be all too easy for companies to hide behind complex supply chains.
The second issue that the Government raised in the other place was that there was no evidence of UK organisations facilitating forced organ harvesting, yet there are companies with substantial operations in the UK providing immunosuppressive drugs for transplants in China. There is evidence of companies dramatically raising their stake in the Chinese market over the past few years. Sources on the ground claim that CellCept, an immunosuppressive drug, has been used on Chinese prisoners for transplants. There is no evidence that those individuals consented.
That is why a clear and direct provision relating to forced organ harvesting is necessary. UK taxpayers’ money should not inadvertently be supporting this inhumane trade perpetrated by the Chinese Communist party. There must be the ability or at least the option to stop it. The amendment is not asking for draconian action. It simply gives discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if there is a connection to forced organ harvesting. That would give the Government the ability to act to prevent the complicity of UK taxpayers in forced organ harvesting.
The amendment must be seen in the context of our country’s wider relationship with China. The Government have extensively talked tough about standing up for our values against China. China is a trading partner that we cannot ignore or close ourselves off to, but that does not mean that we should not take such opportunities as this amendment to do right by our values and by humanity. Only a couple of days ago, the Prime Minister told the Chinese Prime Minister that attempts to undermine British democracy are completely unacceptable and that we will defend our democracy and our security. The amendment gives us the opportunity to use our democracy—the democracy that they seem to hold in contempt—to stand up for our values against China.
I urge colleagues across the House to take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Chinese Communist party, in this week of all weeks, that this House will stand up for our values by keeping Lords amendment 102B in the Bill.

Alex Burghart: With the leave of the House, I thank all Members who have made points in this important debate. Let me remind colleagues that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected in the areas of greatest risk to public procurement. I return to the point I made at the start: there is fortunately no single known instance of such practice in the UK public procurement chain. We do not see it as a great risk to public procurement. I welcome the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) to her place and her new role, and I look forward to debating with her and working with her in the weeks and months ahead.
The hon. Lady mentioned the World Health Organisation. The Government regularly discuss allegations of organ harvesting with the WHO, and also with other international partners and human rights NGOs. Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office wrote to the WHO in Geneva to encourage it to give careful consideration to the findings of the China tribunal on organ harvesting in March 2020. I very much do not want the House to get the impression that we do not take this seriously. It is a feature of our diplomacy and our work, where we are co-operating with like-minded nations that abhor this practice.
A number of Members raised points about professional misconduct. The existing provisions relating to professional misconduct apply where suppliers fail to adhere to ethical or professional standards that apply in their industry or where the supplier is engaged in professional misconduct that brings into question their integrity. I assure the House that practices involving the removal, storage and use of human tissue that are either illegal or contrary to ethical professional standards will be covered. It is therefore unnecessary to single out that particular practice in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke on a number of issues. It remains a sadness for the Government that the Scottish Government chose not to be part of this Bill, leaving Scotland out of this new procurement regime and depriving small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland of the advantages that will come. They will also sit outside the new security measures that we have introduced, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government, and I hope that Scottish voters are listening and that as this Bill goes through they realise the opportunities that their Government have chosen to deprive them of.
The hon. Lady raised an issue about the scope of Government contracts. We are dealing with many contracts from many different layers throughout public procurement, which could be such things as grass-cutting services in a local authority. With the amendment, we would be asking small and medium-sized enterprises to conduct a level of diligence that goes way beyond their needs and expertise. That is a disproportionate burden to place on them. If we put too many burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises, we may discourage those businesses  from applying for public contracts, which is one of the precise and specific aims of the Bill. We have £300 billion-worth of public procurement every year. I want to see small and medium-sized enterprises in England, Wales and Northern Ireland getting a bigger bite of that pie, as I am sure do you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that SNP Members will vote against this Bill that they are not part of, which I am afraid speaks to their peculiar constitutional mindset.
To the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I remind him that if anybody falsifies their procurement declaration, that would be grounds for exclusion under the Bill. We therefore believe that that point is covered off.
I commend the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) again on everything she has done to shine a light on these terrible crimes. She is always at the forefront of these debates and ensures that the plight of people in China is heard in the House. To her points, I say again that if we were to specify this one crime, of which we have found no evidence in UK supply chains, we would also be inviting a long list covering every conceivable misconduct in a vain attempt to provide certainty on specific issues. That would create a large bureaucratic burden, which is precisely what we are trying to get away from in the Bill. However, I reassure her again that having looked at this over and over again, we believe that the existing professional misconduct exclusion grounds will cover that and help contracting authorities to do their bit to ensure that we do not have suppliers in our supply chains who are involved in those abhorrent practices.
I hope that we can move this vital Bill a step closer to Royal Assent. The House has made its view clear once before, and I ask that it makes its view clear a second time.
Question put, That the House disagrees with Lords amendment 102B.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Nigel Evans: Order. A deferred Division was going on in the No Lobby. That will be paused while this Division takes place and will resume after it is over, with injury time of about 10 minutes so that those who have not voted in the deferred Division will get an opportunity to do so.

The House having divided: Ayes 274, Noes 194.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 102B disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 102B;
That Alex Burghart, Julie Marson, James Daly, Peter Gibson, Nia Griffith, Chris Elmore and Kirsty Blackman be members of the Committee;
That Alex Burghart be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Scott Mann.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Nigel Evans: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 161B. If that Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Dame Margaret Hodge has tabled two manuscript amendments to Lords amendment 161B, which have been selected by Mr Speaker. Papers will be distributed as soon as possible.
The deferred Division has now resumed in the No Lobby and injury time has been added, but Members do not have long.

After Clause 46 - Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 23B and 23C.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 151B and 151C, Government motion to disagree, and Government motion to insist on amendment 151A.
Lords amendment 161B, Government motion to disagree, manuscript amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to insist on amendment 161A.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is always a pleasure to speak with right hon. and hon. Members on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which they will know is close to my heart and contains many vital measures for which I have long campaigned. The Bill will give us the powers we need to crack down on those who abuse our open economy, while ensuring that the vast majority of law-abiding businesses can grow and flourish.
I am grateful that both Houses have reached agreement on several issues, including those relating to the register of overseas entities and on removing the extension of the failure to prevent offence to money laundering. However, we are here today as agreement is still outstanding on a handful of remaining issues. I urge this House to accept the Government amendments, to settle those remaining topics and ensure that we can proceed to Royal Assent and implementation of these important reforms without delay.
I will now speak to those remaining topics. In the other place, the Government tabled two amendments on nominee shareholders—amendments 23B and 23C, in lieu of Commons amendment 23A, and in response to Lord Vaux’s amendment 23 on this topic from Report stage in the other place.
The Government’s amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to make further provision for the purpose of identifying persons with significant control in cases where shares are held by a nominee. This will allow the Government to work with relevant stakeholders to target the regulations in an effective and  focused way that does not impose disproportionate burdens. Members of the other place agreed with the Government’s proposal and I trust that Members of this House will therefore agree with it today.
Lords amendments 151B and 151C would apply the exemption from the failure to prevent fraud offence to micro-entities only, rather than the Government’s position of excluding all small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government appreciate that Lord Garnier has moved closer to the Government’s position in agreeing to the principle of applying a threshold. However, our position remains that such an amendment would still incur significant costs to businesses. Reducing the exemption threshold to only micro-entities would increase one-off costs for businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. The annual recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to over £192 million.

Robert Buckland: Where do those figures come from?

Kevin Hollinrake: We used very similar analysis to that used for the failure to prevent bribery and failure to prevent tax evasion offences. We have used a common methodology. I have not seen any figures that contradict our figures here, but in my view—having run a business and dealt with some of the failure to prevent bribery provisions—there is no doubt that there are significant costs. There may be external consultants to bring in, for example. Even if one is compliant, one might not know whether one is compliant, so there are definite associated costs to ensuring that reasonable efforts are made to prevent fraud, as it would be in this case.
Those costs would still be disproportionately shared by small business owners, when law enforcement can attribute and prosecute fraud more easily in these smaller organisations; and, as I have set out before, we must be mindful of the cumulative impact on SMEs across multiple Government requirements and regulations. In all the work I have done in the past from the Back Benches on failure to prevent, it was invariably the case that all cases involved larger businesses, not SMEs.
Large companies have the resources and specialist expertise to cope with additional burdens, whereas small businesses often have to dedicate a significant amount of time and resource, often paying for external professional advice to assess what new rules would mean for them. That is the case even where they subsequently assess that they already have adequate controls in place. That is time and resource that could otherwise have been used to grow and generate wealth for their businesses and jobs for their staff. The Government are extremely mindful of the pressures on companies of all sizes, including SMEs, and therefore do not feel it is appropriate to place this new unnecessary burden on over 450,000 businesses. I therefore urge Members of this House to support the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, to ensure that we take a proportionate approach and do not impose unnecessary measures that would curb economic growth.
Turning to Lords amendment 161B, made by Lord Faulks, on cost protection for law enforcement in civil recovery cases, the Government remain of the view that the amendment would be a significant departure from the loser pays principle and therefore should not be rushed into without careful consideration. There is  no clear evidence that such changes would help to achieve their intended aim of increasing the capacity of law enforcement to take on more civil recovery cases. There have been no adverse cost rulings against an enforcement authority carrying out this type of civil recovery in the past six years.
Costs are just one of many factors that determine whether law enforcement will take on a case. For example, the evidence available to pursue a case, particularly where evidence is required from overseas, often proves more vital to an operational decision. There are already a number of ways in which an enforcement agency’s liability to legal costs can be protected under the civil procedure rules in England and Wales. For instance, rule 44.2 gives the court discretion as to the payment of costs by either party, including whether they are payable to another party, the amount, and when they are payable. In addition, a cost-capping order can be applied for under rule 3.19 to limit any future costs that a party may recover under a later costs order. If we are to introduce further legislation, we must consider what gap this is trying to fill. We should also consider civil liberties and property rights that underpin our economy. We will potentially be handing huge powers to the state, which could be held over an individual.
The Government recognise the potential merits of reform, which is why we have added to the Bill a statutory commitment to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities, and to publish a report on the findings before Parliament within 12 months. I therefore hope that Members of this House will agree with the Government’s position today.
In conclusion, I encourage this House to agree with the Government’s position on the outstanding Lords amendments. It is vital that we achieve Royal Assent without delay, so that we can proceed to implement the important reforms in the Bill as quickly as possible.

Rushanara Ali: It is a great honour to speak for the Opposition on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I am also grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) and many others across the House who have played such an important role in getting the Bill to this point.
By the Government’s own definition:
“Economic crime refers to a broad category of activity involving money, finance or assets, the purpose of which is to unlawfully obtain a profit or advantage for the perpetrator or cause loss to others.”
It poses a threat to our country’s national security, our institutions and our economy, and causes serious harm to our citizens and society. Failure to act allows criminals to benefit from the proceeds of their crimes and to fund further criminality. In the most extreme cases, we have seen the funding of organised crime groups, terrorist activity, drug dealing and people trafficking.
Economic crime has many victims. For too long, the Government have turned a blind eye to corruption and dirty money, allowing Russian illicit finance to flood into our country and let Putin’s cronies stash ill-gotten gains and even recycle the proceeds of crime into luxury properties across our cities. More than two thirds of English and Welsh properties held by foreign shell companies do not report their true owners. Research by the London School of Economics and Warwick University shows that the register of overseas entities is not fully effective. For 71% of those properties, essential information about their beneficial owners remains missing or publicly inaccessible, despite the register of overseas entities. It is not enough, and we need more action.
After the Grenfell Tower fire disaster, which claimed 72 lives, we have learned more about freeholders hiding behind offshore trusts and labyrinthine company structures to make it impossible for leaseholders to uncover who is responsible for replacing dangerous flammable cladding. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country are living in fear of Grenfell-style fires in unsafe blocks, while some owners hide abroad under company structures that help them to dodge paying for replacement cladding by setting up companies and trusts in overseas territories, lacking transparency. Our Government and our citizens must be able to access information about who owns what, and where responsibility lies.
This legislation is long overdue. As far back as 2018, the then Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), was reported to have said that the BBC hit series “McMafia” was
“very close to the truth”
and condemned the
“impunity with which some of these people operate and the brutality of it”.
He promised new powers to crack down on gangsters, criminals and corrupt members of the global elite, with the full force of Government to be used against them. While some steps have been taken, it took Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the Government to step up and introduce further legislation. The Government have delayed legislation for too long, and in that time money has been lost, economic crime has persisted, and the UK economy has once again lost out. Shamefully, our city—our capital—has taken on the reputation of cleaning up much of the world’s dirty money.
The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has merely highlighted a shameful situation that campaigners have long decried. For years the UK has been awash with cash from kleptocrats and oppressive regimes. Transparency International UK has highlighted that £6.7 billion worth of property has been bought with the use of suspicious wealth. I recently visited Ukraine, where I witnessed the terrible impact of the Russian aggression on the civilian population, who are constantly living in fear of airstrikes. It is sickening to think that the people who are responsible for these atrocities today could be enjoying luxury apartments and houses in Belgravia and Mayfair, just a stone’s throw from this House. However, it is not just the Kremlin; as The Times has reported, more than £200 million-worth of UK property is owned by the children of notorious rulers and their henchmen from failed states and autocracies around the world. The cost of economic crime is as much as £350 billion.
There is much to do. Law enforcement must be backed up; we must have the transparency that justice demands, and send a clear signal that there cannot be  dark corners where kleptocrats can stash their money. The Bill is a starting point, not an end point. We will be holding the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that this legislation makes an actual difference. Crucially, tackling economic crime requires support for key institutions such as the National Crime Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and the Customs Crown Prosecution Service. It is not enough just to introduce legislation; we need enforcement, and we need these institutions to be properly resourced and supported.
We have had the FinCEN files, the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, as well as numerous inquiries by Select Committees—including the Treasury Committee, on which I served for a number of years—but we have seen only incremental change, which is very frustrating for many Members on both sides of the House. Further action is needed to ensure transparency in respect of the ownership of UK property by overseas companies, and on compensation for victims of economic crime. There remain huge gaps. However, we welcome the changes that the Government have made in relation to strategic lawsuits against public participation, which have been worked on by a number of Members.
We support Lords amendments 151B and 151C, and welcome Lord Garnier’s focus on the failure to prevent fraud in non-micro entities. We also support Lords amendment 161B, tabled by Lord Faulks. As he has explained, subsection (2) should state that the court should not normally make an order
“that any costs of proceedings relating to a case to which this section applies”,
and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has tabled an amendment to that Lords amendment, which has been accepted, and we accept the Lords amendment on that basis.
This Bill is almost over the line. It has been improved since Ministers first embarked on it. However, there is much more to be done. We hope we can ensure that enforcement takes place once it is on the statute book, so that dirty money can be exposed, illegal assets can be seized, and action is taken against those who are guilty of economic crime. We must not have further delay in pushing for transparency and action in tackling economic crime.

Bob Neill: This is an important Bill and there is much good in it, but I am afraid that a number of areas require further attention. Now is not the time for discursive speeches, but I regret to say that notwithstanding the good in the Bill, the Government have fallen into error in relation to the two Lords amendments that they seek to reverse.
Let me say first that while a measure to deal with “failure to prevent” offences is a good idea, this measure is too widely drawn. The Minister made a point about the burden of costs on small businesses, but the definition of a medium-sized business is significant: the risk is less to do with the size of a business than with where it does its business, and also its corporate structures. One of the important things we have learned from the United States is that “failure to prevent” offences are not simply about prosecuting, important though that is, but also about changing corporate behaviour. I did not hear a word about that in the Minister’s speech, and I think it might be better to reflect on it again.
Lord Garnier tabled an amendment to compromise on micro-entities; perhaps we should think again about a third tier, consisting of medium-sized as opposed to small entities. That would not be unreasonable, given that many medium-sized entities do significant work abroad where there is some risk, and given that the costs are tax-deductible from profit. I urge the Government to think again, because having done so much good in the Bill, it will be a shame if we weaken its enforcement by widening the net too much.
As for the cost caps, when the Minister said that no prosecutions had been brought yet, he did not add that that was because of their chilling effect. People will not risk bringing prosecutions if their budgets are going to be eroded after the event by costs being awarded against them. Only yesterday, in the House of Commons, I had the pleasure of meeting Bill Browder, who has set out very clearly why that has been the case for a number of years. The Serious Fraud Office tried to bring a prosecution a few years ago and got its fingers burned, and there have been few prosecutions since then. This is about behaviours rather than outcomes.
I have to say—with apologies to the Minister, whom I like and respect—that the Government have taken an unduly restrictive and literalist approach to these matters. It would be far better to find compromises—to think again, go back to the Lords, and see whether there is somewhere between Lord Garnier’s position and that of the Government. Perhaps that third tier of the medium-sized entity is a way around this. The Government are committed to a review of cost caps in 12 months’ time, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said the last time this came up, what is there to review? The evidence is there: cost caps are chilling. As the Minister will see if he reads the evidence given to the Cambridge economic crime summit—at which I had the pleasure of speaking last week—it is overwhelmingly clear that not a single one of the experts could understand the Government’s position on this, so I ask them please to think again about it as well.

Alison Thewliss: I strongly very much with what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said. Let us just agree with the Lords. Let us get on with this. Let us do this legislation, and do it properly.
Let me say first that it is important for us to have as much information as possible about those who own companies. It is clear from all the evidence that has come before us that the lack of such information causes people to find ways of hiding their money, and the UK has become a magnet for that. The Minister has suggested that there will be a significant cost to businesses, but businesses are already doing work on failure to prevent bribery. As Lord Garnier said on Monday, there is a clear read-across: it would be easy to add fraud to the current provisions. It would not be difficult, and it would bring about an economic benefit. The Minister also suggested that economic growth would be hampered in some way, but he himself has said that
“ a corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime and money laundering would reduce the amount of money that is illegally shifted out of the UK into foreign jurisdictions and increase the amount of tax that is paid.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 220.]
Why does the Minister now disagree with himself? Why does he disagree with statements that he has made in the past? He knows that this is an important measure, and that this is an issue that we can deal with here today and it will be done. We will not have to come back to it, we will not have to keep debating it, and the Minister will be able to see that he has finished it off and done a good job.
On the issue of adverse costs, I agree with what Bill Browder said in his evidence to the Bill Committee. By not introducing such a measure, we are inhibiting law enforcement when it comes to economic crime. We know that those on the other side of the equation who want to hide their money have plenty of it to throw at the best lawyers and at the best accountants to make things look a particular way. If we are to be in this fight, we need to give the law enforcement agencies the resources that they require, and cost capping is a key element of that.
As I said the previous time we debated these matters, there is no need for a review. We need to get on with things. An election is coming, and we do not know when we will pass this way again. The Minister should accept the Lords amendments, and get on with the work.

Robert Buckland: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) repeated her phrase of last week—and, indeed, we have passed this way again. I will resist the temptation to be too biblical today; I will simply reiterate to the my hon. Friend the Minister the points that I made last week. Lord Garnier has moved on the position in the Lords and offered an olive branch to the Government, in the sense that this is a different amendment. It rightly now affords what, in the opinion of many of us, will be greater protections for businesses. What is being ignored in this debate is the fact that businesses that take reasonable measures will not be the subject of a prosecution or investigation. Businesses that are not within this regime will not have that protection, so there is a cogent argument that failing to extend the “failure to prevent” offence to more businesses would leave them less well protected.
I pray in aid the excellent speech by Lord Garnier, and in particular his reference to the guidance that was issued to the Bribery Act 2010, which states:
“To a certain extent the level of risk will be linked to the size of the organisation and the nature and complexity of its business, but size will not be the only determining factor. Some small organisations can face quite significant risks and will need more extensive procedures than their counterparts facing limited risks. However, small organisations are unlikely to need procedures that are as extensive as those of a large multi-national organisation.”
Herein lies the point. The Government at that point were taking the view that it was the extent of external risk that mattered, not the size of the enterprise, which begs the question: what on earth are we doing here? Why this change? Why this change from the policy of a Conservative Government, which was echoed in the tax evasion “failure to prevent” offence of 2017?
With the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I respect utterly—he knows that I share his passion for reform in this area—it is no good citing at the last minute figures that I simply do not accept have the veracity that he claims they do. A lot of the measures have already been taken by businesses dealing with tax evasion and bribery, and I say again that this is not fraud in general; this is fraud with an intent to benefit the entity—the company—which is a different beast altogether from fraud in general.
Secondly, on the cost cap, Lord Faulks was absolute right to ask: if not now, when? The reason that there have not been many cases is that there has definitely been a dampening effect on authorities bringing these civil proceedings. The intention in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was for a lot more use of part 5 in civil proceedings, but we have seen that vanishingly irregularly. We need more of those in order to burnish Britain’s reputation as a centre of clean money.

Kevin Hollinrake: I have listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend’s points. He said a few seconds ago that this would relate only to fraud that benefits the body concerned. Paragraph 1(b) of Lords amendment 151 also covers the body or an associate within that body providing services, so this is not just about the benefit to the organisation itself.

Robert Buckland: I will take that qualification. I was seeking a short cut because time is brief. My hon. Friend is right to mention the agency point, but it is still a much narrower ambit of the offence than fraud in general. That is the point I would ask him to take away, because I am not persuaded. I think the amendments should remain within the body of the Bill as amended, and I will be voting accordingly.

Margaret Hodge: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that we must vote in five minutes to remain in order, so I will simply say that economic crime is a national security issue and should not be a partisan issue in this House. I urge the Minister to set aside the party political views that he is expressing and to go with the consensus that has been built, not just in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords and in the non-governmental organisation sector outside.

David Davis: The right hon. Lady is right. It is not just the parties but the different sides of the natural arguments over authority, libertarianism and civil rights that are not divided. I am a strong defender of the right to be presumed innocent, but there needs to be a rebalancing in this area, where the criminals we are up against are very sophisticated and will use smaller companies to get around this if they need to.

Margaret Hodge: In the interest of trying to get to the vote on time I will close my speech, but I urge all Members to please support the amendments proposed by Conservatives in the House of Lords, which are eminently sensible, rational and pragmatic.

Kit Malthouse: I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and speak  very strongly against Lords amendments 151B and 151C, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I am surprised at Lord Garnier’s lack of any conception of what it is like to run a small business and the cumulative impact of Government regulation thereupon. The limits that are drawn here will draw in all manner of businesses, not least some eminent barristers who will fall foul of some of the numbers. Indeed, the average town-centre or city-centre pub will be covered by these regulations, such is their level of turnover and employees. It is worrying that I am perhaps the only small-business voice here and that there are not enough small-business people in the House to point out the problems with this issue.
As the Minister has said, hundreds of thousands of businesses will be drawn into the net. This is not necessarily about the compliance cost. The kind of regulation that comes with the prospect of a criminal offence has a chilling effect on small businesses. I speak as somebody who has owned one for nearly 30 years. When the Revenue, health and safety or trading standards show up with some new regulation, a whole industry cranks into place to terrify the owners of small businesses into some kind of compliance. Then along come the consultants, the accountants, the webinars and the newsletters telling us what we do and do not have to do. All of this distracts us from what we should be doing, which is trying to create employment and wealth and paying tax to the rest of the country.
The other issue is that this misunderstands the dynamic of businesses of this size. If a business of this size is going to engage in fraud, it is very possible—more than likely, actually—that the principal will be the instigator of that fraud. The idea that, alongside all the other offences, they should take steps to prevent themselves from perpetrating fraud seems ridiculous. Added to those general difficulties are the specific ones presented by the Heath Robinson-type calculation that every business will have to undertake every month: adding together how many employees there are and how many are employed in each month in year P, then taking away the number you first thought of and dividing it by the number of months. We are all going to have to do this every single month to work out whether we are above the threshold or not. Should we have the steps? Should we not have the steps? It all seems particularly nonsensical.
We know that a vast amount of this fraud takes place in larger companies, and they have the capacity and the wherewithal to deal with it. If my hon. Friends really think that senior barristers, whose turnover and assets will be more than the threshold, should be taking and showing procedural steps to avoid conducting fraud—do not forget that they are sole practitioners—then I am afraid we have gone through the looking glass of what Conservative Members think is appropriate.

Nigel Evans: I call Barry Gardiner.

Barry Gardiner: In the interest of moving to the vote, I will not speak.

Nigel Evans: In which case we come to the Minister, with the leave of the House.

Kevin Hollinrake: I welcome the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) to her place. We worked closely together on the Treasury Committee and it is a pleasure to work across the House with her today. I also pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for her similar approach to the work we have done on this legislation. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this debate and their support for the Government’s amendments made in the other place. I want to refer to a number of points that have been raised today.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, referred to the Government turning a blind eye to the issue of economic crime, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us have worked on this cross-party across the House from the Back Benches and now on the Front Benches, and this is the second piece of legislation we have brought forward on economic crime in the past 18 months. These are groundbreaking new measures. This Bill contains further reforms to the Register of Overseas Entities introduced in the previous legislation. Our legislation on strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—is world leading, and we now have the “failure to prevent” offence, which I will speak to in a moment.
The hon. Lady also referred to the resources made available to our law enforcement agencies. We are continuing to invest in measures to tackle economic crime, and we have increased the budget of the National Crime Agency year on year since 2019. Its budget has now increased 40% from the figure in 2019 and stands at just over £700 million.
Together, the recent spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide £400 million of funding over the spending review period, and the levy is estimated to bring in £100 million per annum starting from this financial year, 2023-24. There will be a wide-ranging review by the end of 2027, providing transparency on how the levy is performing against its original purpose, including on how the money is spent. Existing efforts will move at pace to enhance and further drive forward the unit in what are inevitably complex and lengthy operations. In considering this legislation, we have often debated the extra resources that we are determined to deliver for Companies House and will pay for at least 400 more people. That is an incredibly important part of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) stated very clearly that he feels the failure to prevent threshold is too widely drawn, and I understand his point. As I said in my opening speech, all the cases I have dealt with in this place—whether it be Lloyds HBOS Reading, HSBC, NatWest or others—have involved large organisations that turned a blind eye to fraud or let it happen on their watch. We believe it is right to strike a balance between the offence’s crime prevention benefits and the burden placed on business. There is a balance between risk and regulation, and we want to make sure that the regulations do not put excessive costs on business.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) made similar points. He cast doubt on the figures I have in front of me on the costs of the burden on business, which we  believe will be £1.5 billion of implementation costs and around £192 million of recurrent annual costs. I am happy to look at other costs and analyses, but those are the figures before me.
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting point that the threshold will facilitate economic crime in certain companies, but the Lords amendment allows some companies to be outside the rules. I am not sure how he can draw a line to say that there will be economic crime in some companies and not in others. It is very difficult to draw a line, and we believe that drawing a line at larger companies is right.

Kit Malthouse: Lines matter. At a point in a business’s evolution, as my hon. Friend will know from building his own business, it crosses a line. It is perfectly possible, under the definitions in Lords amendment 151C, that a company that satisfies the financial criterion will decide to go from nine employees to 10 or 11, and suddenly it crosses into this world of pain—the compliance people show up, and the company needs a whole new process and procedure that comes with employing that single extra person, on top of all the other employment and safety regulation it is having to deal with. Setting these thresholds at a level at which companies can absorb the step up in responsibility, and without a disproportionate amount of cost, seems critical. Does he agree?

Kevin Hollinrake: I do agree. I listened closely to my right hon. Friend’s remarks. He said he might be the only small business owner currently in the Chamber, but he is talking to one. I have owned a business for 30 years, growing it from a small business to a larger one, and I absolutely agree that it is not just the legislation itself but its implementation and the requirement to implement prevention procedures. As he puts it, that would almost create a new industry of advisers to advise on what needs to be done, be they accountants or third parties. He is right to raise those concerns on behalf of small and medium-sized enterprises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked about setting the threshold at a different level, the small company threshold rather than the current micro company threshold. The small company threshold is 50 employers, £10.2 million of turnover and a £5.1 million balance sheet, according to Companies House, whereas we think a 250-employee threshold would be more appropriate. That is where we differ, but I am happy to continue that conversation.

Richard Fuller: I want to ask a question that I do not think was addressed last time we debated Lords amendments, and that I do not think the Government have addressed today. What are the implications if there is an explicit threshold? What further thought have the Government given to the implications of putting in a threshold? Are they satisfied that some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members and Conservative Back Benchers have been taken into account?

Kevin Hollinrake: We are very clear that we believe we have the right threshold. Larger companies clearly have the capacity and the human resources and risk compliance departments to mitigate these kinds of risks, whereas  small and medium-sized enterprises are rightly much more focused on driving their business forward, which is very important to the economic health of our country. I think we have it right. My hon. Friend made a similar point in our previous debate on this issue, and he makes it very strongly. The fact that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) have made that point today counterbalances some of the arguments on the other side for extending the threshold further.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke about my previous comments. I think I have been pretty consistent in everything I have said in the House, unless she can point to anything different I have said from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), laughs, but I have always been a champion of the “failure to prevent” offence. If Members look back to the original Bill, which I think was 260 pages long—it is now nearly 400 pages long—they will see that I have been very keen to make sure that we listen to hon. Members on things like the “failure to prevent” offence and the identification doctrine, which both now feature in the Bill. All the cases I dealt with on the Back Benches, and indeed the information I have seen as a Minister, show that the kind of fraud the law enforcement agencies have not been able to prosecute is happening in larger companies, not smaller companies.
We believe that these circumstances are different from unexplained wealth orders, for which we obviously put cost-capping measures in place. Of course, unexplained wealth orders are not a process for taking somebody’s assets from them; they are a process for freezing assets. Lords amendment 161B is entirely different. In my view, there is definitely a civil liberties issue in terms of the power of the state versus the power of the individual. This measure potentially delivers an imbalance of power between the state and the individual. I would be keen to have a conversation with the very learned Members in the Chamber, but they must understand that the state is powerful and well resourced compared with the individual. Obviously there are some individuals who are very well resourced, but we still operate on the presumption of innocence in this country, and we have to be very careful. That is why we want a review to look into this and report back to Parliament within 12 months.
We have communicated with the National Crime Agency to ask for evidence on where it feels these measures are needed. All law enforcement agencies want more power and more provision, of course, but I have seen no clear, significant evidence from the enforcement agencies that cost-capping orders would be needed in this situation.
I, too, have spoken to Bill Browder, and I have spoken to officials about whether this measure is needed in the UK regime. Members will be aware that Mr Browder principally looks at the parallels with the US situation, where adverse costs do not apply across the system. Members have talked about the chilling effect of such provisions, but there is potentially a chilling effect on the other side of the equation.
Yesterday I met a barrister who defends people against such actions, and he was very concerned about the imbalance of power that would result. I have not seen any significant evidence, and I am very interested in the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley  and Chislehurst gave to the Cambridge crime symposium, at which I have spoken in the past, on whether this is needed. However, I am not aware of anything the Justice Committee or the Law Commission has done in this area. It is important that we look at that kind of evidence before we implement these kinds of measures.
The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) accuses me of being party political. I am surprised she takes that view. I have worked on a cross-party basis from the Back Benches and, as she knows, I do the same from the Front Bench, and I will continue to do so to make sure that we get this legislation right.
In conclusion, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have worked hard to get the balance right between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach, and I therefore urge Members on both sides of the House to support them.
Lords amendments 23B and 23C agreed to.

After Clause 180 - Failure to prevent fraud

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 151B and 151C and insists on its Amendment 151A.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
The House proceeded to a Division.

Nigel Evans: Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 276, Noes 210.
Question accordingly agreed to.
3.8 pm
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message,  the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 4 September.)
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).

Liam Byrne: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The inexplicable delay in counting votes has now risked denying the House a vote on ensuring that this Bill to tackle economic crime is as strong as it could be. Will you therefore advise the House on what action we can now take to ensure that in the debates that lie ahead we can come back to this question and make sure we have the right provisions in place in statute and that this country is no longer a soft touch for economic crime?

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, we are now going to move on to the motion on amendment 161B, and if that is annulled there will be other opportunities, I am sure.

After Clause 187 - Civil recovery: costs of proceedings

Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 161B in lieu of Commons amendment 161A and insists on amendment 161A in lieu.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 151B, 151C and 161B.
That Kevin Hollinrake, Scott Mann, James Sunderland, Jane Stevenson, Rushanara Ali, Taiwo Owatemi and Alison Thewliss be members of the Committee;
That Kevin Hollinrake be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Robert Buckland: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance about how I properly place on the record a reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in the context of my speech in the debate about the Lords message on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill?

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his point of order. He has recognised that he made an omission and he has corrected it at the earliest opportunity. I thank him for doing so.

Prevention and Suppression  of Terrorism

Suella Braverman: I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 6 September, be approved.
Before getting into the detail of the order, I take this opportunity to apologise to the House and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the fact that news of my decision, which we are here to debate, became public before the order was laid.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their consideration of the order, which will see the Wagner Group, a truly brutal organisation, proscribed. Having just met Ukrainian Interior Minister Klymenko, I am proud to reiterate the United Kingdom’s commitment to Ukraine, as it resists and defeats Putin’s war of aggression.
Some 78 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription is not only a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations; it sends a strong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorist activity globally.
Wagner Group are terrorists, plain and simple. I therefore propose amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding Wagner Group, also referred to as the Wagner Network, to the list of proscribed organisations. In referring to Wagner Group, the order encompasses all Wagner’s activities across the globe.
For an organisation to be proscribed, I as the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is currently involved in terrorism, as set out in section 3 of the 2000 Act. If the statutory test is met, I must then consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether to exercise my discretion.
Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties. It criminalises being a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation and wearing articles of a proscribed organisation in a way that arouses suspicion. Penalties are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Proscription also supports other disruptive activity, such as immigration disruptions and terrorist financing offences. The resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and therefore liable to be seized.
The order builds on sanctions that are already in place against Wagner Group. Terrorist financing incurs criminal rather than civil penalties, which allow the Government ultimately to forfeit terrorist property, rather than just freezing an individual’s assets. I am supported in my decision making by the cross-Government proscription review group, and a decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration, given its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved by both Houses.
A great deal of carnage and blame can be laid at the feet of Wagner Group, a Russian private military company, which emerged following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Putin’s first illegal invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014. Wagner have acted as a proxy military force on behalf of the Russian state, operating in a range of theatres including Ukraine, Syria, Central African Republic, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique and Mali. They have pursued Russia’s foreign policy objectives and those of other Governments who have contracted their services.
In the hours following Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Wagner Group were reportedly tasked with assassinating President Zelensky. They failed in that task, thanks to the heroism and bravery of the Ukrainian security forces. Wagner Group describe themselves in heroic terms, even suggesting, revoltingly, that they are saviours of Africa. That private military companies remain illegal under Russian law has never particularly concerned Putin.
Putin can distort the truth to suit himself all he likes, but Wagner Group are terrorists. Wherever they go, instability, misery and violence follow. With the House’s consent, Wagner Group will therefore be proscribed. Having carefully considered all the evidence, including advice from the cross-Government proscription review group, I have decided that there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that Wagner Group are concerned in terrorism and that proscription is proportionate.
Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of Wagner Group’s activities, which supports the decision. Wagner Group commit and participate in terrorism. That is based on evidence of their use of serious violence against Ukrainian armed forces and civilians to advance Russia’s political cause.
Wagner Group played a central role in combat operations against Ukrainian armed forces to seize the city of Popasna in May 2022 and during the assault on Bakhmut, which was largely occupied by Russian forces this year. The horrific assault on Bakhmut resulted in the virtual destruction of a city that was once home to 70,000 people. Those are 70,000 innocent civilians whose homes happened to be in the way of Putin’s neo-imperial ambitions.
Wagner employed the same inhumane and senseless tactics that Russian forces had previously used in Chechnya, killing innocent civilians and destroying an entire city in the process. They barely showed any more concern for the lives of their own side. Defence intelligence has assessed that up to 20,000 convicts, recruited directly from Russian prisons on the promise of a pardon and early release, were killed within a few months of the attack on Bakhmut. Wagner’s relentless bombardment of Bakhmut was one of the bloodiest episodes in modern military history.
Hon. Members will also be aware of multiple reports that allege unbelievable brutality by Wagner Group commanders against their own troops who retreat, desert or otherwise refuse to carry out their leaders’ murderous orders. The most notorious of those events, the killing of a purported deserter, who was murdered by a sledgehammer blow to the head, has even been glorified by Wagner’s leaders and Russian ultra-nationalists. That macabre culture and brutality are indicative of an organisation that is more than just a private military company. There is a reason for that: it is a terrorist organisation.
Ukrainian prosecutors have accused Wagner Group fighters of war crimes near Kyiv. The tortured bodies of civilians were found with their hands tied behind their backs in the village of Motyzhyn. I visited Ukraine last year in my role as Attorney General and I saw at first hand those prosecutors’ unrelenting commitment to seeking justice. We stand with Ukraine in that mission.
Wagner Group have also been implicated in serious acts of violence in several countries in Africa. A UN report published in May this year implicated Wagner in  the massacre of at least 500 people in the central Malian town of Moura in March 2022, including summary executions, as well as rape and torture. In June 2021, a panel of experts convened by the UN Security Council detailed atrocities in the Central African Republic, including excessive use of force, indiscriminate killings, the occupation of schools and looting on a large scale, including of humanitarian organisations.
Despite their mutiny in June of this year and the reported death of their leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, last month, Wagner remain a violent and destructive organisation. Proscription sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackle terrorist activity and builds on our existing cross-Government work to counter Wagner’s destabilising activities. Their leadership’s recent feud with senior Russian military figures is a predictable consequence of Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, but it is fundamentally a distraction from the fact that Wagner continue to commit violent acts around the world. While Putin’s regime wavers over what to do with the monster that it created, Wagner’s destabilising activities only continue to serve the Kremlin’s political goals.

Layla Moran: I am listening carefully to what the Home Secretary is saying about the timeline for all this. Although I certainly welcome this proscription, the frustration is that it did not happen sooner. Although she cannot go into the detail of the intelligence that she has heard, could she perhaps expand on why it has taken this long, because much of what she has said refers to 2021 and early 2022. Why did we not we do this sooner?

Suella Braverman: The decision has not been taken in isolation; it builds on a strong response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and Wagner’s wider destabilising activity, including extensive sanctions. Decisions on whether and when to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of the available information. Significant events have taken place recently, including the mutiny in June, the alleged death of the core Wagner Group leadership in August, and it is right that we consider the impact of those key events when taking the decision.
The real fact remains that this group present a serious risk to security around the world, and their increasing activities in Ukraine affect European stability and our security, which is why the case for action is now stronger than ever. Wagner are vulnerable. A leadership vacuum and questions about their future provide a unique opportunity to truly disrupt their operations and the threat they pose. That is why this House must proscribe Wagner now.
This decision comes after public calls from President Zelensky for international allies to take action and list Wagner as a terrorist organisation. In doing so, we stand alongside our allies in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and France, whose Parliaments have all called for Wagner Group to be labelled as a terrorist organisation on the EU’s list of terrorist groups. We continue to work in close co-ordination with the US, which designated Wagner under its transnational criminal organisation sanctions programme earlier this year.
In formally proscribing, we will be leading the international effort by taking concrete legal action against Wagner. I urge our allies to follow suit. This decision  demonstrates that the UK will maintain its unwavering support for Ukraine, in co-ordination with our allies. It shows that we stand with the people of Ukraine against Russia’s aggression.
To conclude, wherever Wagner operate, they have a catastrophic effect on communities, worsening conflicts and damaging the reputations of countries that host them. Wagner may be at their most vulnerable and Russia’s military leaders may be grappling to regain control of the organisation, but the brutal methods they have employed will undoubtedly remain a tool of the Russian state. Let there be no misunderstanding: in whatever form Wagner take, we and our allies will pursue them. We will expose them and we will disrupt them. Wagner are a terrorist organisation and we must not be afraid of saying so. We will hold Russia to account for its use of these malign groups—these international gangsters—and the destruction they bring around the world. We will continue to support Ukraine in the face of Russia’s aggression, and we will confront and challenge terrorism however and wherever it occurs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I must now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023. The Ayes were 434 and the Noes were 10, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Home Secretary for her remarks. I wish to begin by paying tribute to the exceptional men and women who serve in our intelligence and security services, in Government and in our police, as they all work tirelessly to keep our country safe. Two days on from the anniversary of 9/11, I also wish to remember the lives lost and all those affected by the tragic events of 2001, and to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to stand against the evils of terrorism.
As the Home Secretary has laid out, the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023 amends the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Act by adding Wagner Group as a new entry. What the Government are proposing today will make it a criminal offence to belong to Wagner Group, to engage in activities, such as attending meetings, to promote support for the group, or to publicly display their logo, putting the group on a par with organisations such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. It also enables Wagner assets to be categorised as terrorist property and seized. It is a motion that we on these Opposition Benches strongly support.
Proscribing Wagner Group is a necessary step to address the threat that they pose. It is an action for which we on the Labour Benches have been calling for some time—the shadow Home Secretary called for this back in February. The United States designated Wagner a transnational criminal organisation nine months ago. France designated Wagner as a terrorist entity back in May. Although I am very conscious of the complexities around this type of proscription—perhaps the June coup was a further complicating factor—will the Home Secretary reflect on whether lessons could be learned  with regard to acting sooner? This goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) a moment ago. I ask that question, mindful of the long-standing support for proscription from Members right across this House, including the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The shadow Home Secretary has consistently raised the challenges involved in using counter-terror legislation to proscribe state-sponsored organisations such as Wagner. We have long called for the introduction of a bespoke proscribing mechanism designed specifically to address state-sponsored threats. The Government’s Contest update published in July stated:
“The most pressing national security priority is now the threat from Russia to European security.”
Yet the strategy does not set out a comprehensive response to the national security threats posed by states and state-sponsored actors. I would therefore be grateful if the Home Secretary outlined what robust action the Government are taking to tackle those threats.
There are many people and organisations in the world that we could call a force for good. Wagner are at the opposite end of that spectrum. They are a force for evil wherever they are. Their track record is one of violence, theft and murder, from Ukraine to Syria, and from Mali to Mozambique. They helped to spearhead the takeover of Crimea in 2014 and has carried out appalling war crimes since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. They have been implicated in massacres of civilians and increasing abuses by security forces in multiple other countries. In places such as the Central African Republic they have offered a business model essentially trading violence for natural resources, turbocharging the abusive extraction of minerals that has driven so much conflict and corruption in weak states around the world.
As of July, the Government had sanctioned fewer than a quarter of the 81 individuals and entities the Foreign Affairs Committee recently identified as being linked to Wagner. I ask the Home Secretary to give an assurance that the Government are looking closely at those individuals and working to ensure that, where possible, sanctions are applied. As the Committee also pointed out in its excellent report, Wagner are
“a sprawling, decentralised network of individuals and commercial entities…for which the ‘membership’ is not always clear.”
The presumed assassination of Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin may hasten the break-up of the organisation, but there is little doubt that their work could continue under different names, by the same or different individuals. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, working with her colleagues across Government, steps are being taken to ensure that the UK is ready to respond to such a scenario?
Of course, the threat posed by Wagner is multiplied exponentially because of their links to the Kremlin. It fits neatly within a pattern of crime, corruption and kleptocracy that poses a much wider danger. Russian information and election subversion operations, which Wagner supported and which have targeted the UK, among other countries, will not go away, not least because other countries are imitating them, but by proscribing the group we demonstrate an important  commitment towards protecting our democratic values. I completely understand that the Home Secretary will be limited in what she can say, but given the activities of Wagner it would be helpful were she able to say something about the progress that the defending democracy taskforce is making.
We also need to consider ways in which the UK may itself be facilitating the profits of Wagner’s backers and those like them. For example, research by Transparency International UK suggests that since 2016, £1.5 billion-worth of UK property was bought by Russians accused of corruption or with links to the Kremlin. More than half of that is held through companies in Britain’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies. More than 2,000 companies registered in those areas were used in 48 Russian money laundering and corruption cases, involving more than £82 billion of illicit funds. What is the betting that some of those beneficiaries are linked to Wagner? What is the harm to our security being done even by those who are not?
I know that the Home Secretary will not consider this proscription as job done, and will see it as just an important further step towards disrupting and defeating Wagner’s murderous terrorist activities. While I am conscious that she will be limited in what she is able to say, I would be grateful if she could say something about what steps the Government are taking to strengthen financial transparency and accountability in the UK, in our dependencies and overseas.
The Labour party strongly supports the motion. We will work constructively to stand against the evils of terrorism, and I look forward to hearing from the Home Secretary on the questions that I have put to her.

Liam Fox: I completely support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in proscribing Wagner Group. As she said, they are instrumental in Russia’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. They are almost certainly complicit in war crimes of the sort that we have seen described throughout this horrific conflict, and it is right that we support our allies in Ukraine, in particular President Zelensky.
My purpose in rising in this debate is to question the logic of proscribing Wagner Group today and the Government’s sense of priorities in that we are not doing so alongside, if not linked to, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran. I do so by reference to the tests set out for the proscription of Wagner Group in the Government’s explanatory notes to this motion. The first test is
“the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities”.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has set out how Wagner meet that test, but the IRGC is answerable directly to the supreme leader in Iran, so it has a direct link with the Iranian state’s malignant activities, including its support of the war in Ukraine. The IRGC is directly involved in the brutal oppression of the Iranian people, the suppression of human rights, the disappearances, the torture and the executions—so why not proscribe it?
The second test set out by the Government for proscribing an organisation is
“the specific threat that it poses to the UK”.
I hope my right hon. and learned Friend may say a little bit more, as far as she is able, about that specific threat, but it is clear in the case of the IRGC that MI5 has acknowledged the real threat from Iran’s “aggressive intelligence services” towards the United Kingdom. The IRGC clearly passes that test.
The third test for an organisation is
“the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas”.
Given the scale of the activities that Wagner Group are involved in, they would clearly pass that test. However, the IRGC is an indispensable part of the chain of hostage taking that has a direct impact on the safety of UK nationals and particularly UK dual nationals abroad, including in Iran. Why are we not seeing that linkage here?
The fourth test is
“the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK”.
I am not quite clear about the extent of Wagner’s presence in the UK—I can understand its impact on the UK, but I do not quite grasp its presence in the UK. However, I am very clear about Iran’s presence here and the IRGC’s role in using its propaganda base to incite extremism in the UK.
The fifth test is
“the need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism.”
My right hon. and learned Friend has quite rightly set out a number of countries that are our partners in the international community and should be getting our support in the fight against Wagner Group and their interests in their own countries. However, we know that the IRGC is the export bureau for terrorism in the region, to its neighbours and beyond. We have had so many examples, from Hezbollah onwards.
Then we come to the linkage. The IRGC in Iran has huge control over the means of production in that country. It is inconceivable that it was not intricately involved in the production of the drones that Iran sent to Russia for the oppression of the Ukrainian people. If war crimes have been carried out by Russia, the means of carrying out those crimes has at least part of its origin in Tehran with the IRGC. It is essential that we tackle that as quickly as we can.
No one will disagree that Wagner is an evil, dangerous and malign grouping, but I would argue that they are no worse than the IRGC, which is not being proscribed by the Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister, in seeking the leadership of the Conservative party, was very supportive of the concept of proscribing the IRGC, so why this inactivity? I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have to have discussions and there will be a strong input from the Foreign Office in this. She has been a tough and robust Home Secretary, something that many of us greatly appreciate, but we are well behind the curve compared with the United States when it comes to the IRGC, and our failure to tackle what is a malign influence in the world today is damaging Britain’s reputation in the world beyond.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consult urgently with the rest of Government to see whether we should not be coming back to this Chamber as quickly as possible and adding the IRGC to the groups that this country will rightly proscribe because of their impact on this country, our citizens, the safety of countries beyond, our allies and international law itself.

Roger Gale: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and I agree entirely with what he said. Many people in this House have for some time been calling for the proscription of the IRGC. I have constituents who are also concerned about the reach of the IRGC and are scared for their own safety, even in this country. It would be useful if the Home Secretary addressed the delay in the proscription in her summing up.
Wagner Group are an appalling organisation. The strength of the atrocities that that murderous organisation have been carrying out has been well documented and well known for years at the highest levels of the British Government. The explanatory memorandum to the order sets out clearly the group’s activities, as a proxy military force, on behalf of the Russian state. It states:
“Founded in 2014, Wagner Group has operated in a range of theatres, including Ukraine, Syria, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique, and Mali…in pursuit of Russia’s foreign policy objectives and the objectives of host Governments who have contracted Wagner’s services.”
So why has it taken until 2023, a hot war on European soil and a co-ordinated plane crash killing the group’s leader for this order to come before the House? That is quite astonishing. A catalogue of chaos and destruction has come before today, and as much as we support the measure, it feels to me and many others that the Government have taken far too long to raise the designation.
We in the SNP are disgusted that in October 2021, before Putin’s invasion, the Treasury—then under the control of the now Prime Minister—allowed Yevgeny Prigozhin to circumvent sanctions and launch a targeted attack on a British journalist. We very much want to see action against Wagner Group and all those associated with them—that is a significant point.
In the press release accompanying this announcement, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), said:
“Proscribing Wagner sends a clear message that the UK will not tolerate Russia’s proxies and their barbaric actions in Ukraine, and condemns Wagner’s campaign of corruption and bloodshed on the African continent, which has been repeatedly linked to human rights violations.”
That is all fine and well, but why was this not done sooner? I would like answers from the Home Secretary on that. Acting sooner may have stemmed some of that bloodshed and some of what has happened, and may have sent a clearer message more widely at a much earlier stage. If the organisation was indeed founded in 2014, that means that we have now been waiting nine years for this measure, and a lot of destruction has passed since.
Designating Wagner Group for proscription is a response to repeated requests from Ukraine’s President Zelensky, who has called for the group to be treated as a terrorist organisation. Can the Home Secretary tell us when he first made that request of the Government, and what response has been given to him? Clearly, we support President Zelensky and want him to succeed in his endeavours, but it would be useful to know the timeline and when the Government responded to that request.
On the wider situation, organisations that work for Wagner Group depend on the flow of funds that often wash up through bank accounts in the United Kingdom. We know about the UK’s reputation as a hub for laundering dirty money. Prior to this debate, the  House dealt with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which could do more still to ensure that we know who owns and benefits from various types of financial structures. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that that legislation will go far enough to prevent the sons, daughters, relatives and associates of Wagner Group members from moving money through accounts here in the UK? We should do everything we can, in light of Prigozhin’s actions to evade UK sanctions, to shut down Wagner Group wherever they might sprout up.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has branded the UK Government’s efforts to deter Wagner Group “underwhelming in the extreme” and recommends that the Conservative party revive at the earliest opportunity the 2019 manifesto commitment to spending 0.7% of the UK’s gross national income on official development assistance. Russia, and China to an extent, are exploiting and seeking to put their influence into the gap left by UK development assistance. As we pull back from that influence that we have had in the world, we do not want countries to be turning to states such as Russia, and to groups such as Wagner that work on their behalf. Will the Home Secretary comment on what more can be done to ensure that we counter such nefarious influence? Once states go down that road, it can be very difficult to come back, and we know from countries in Africa that the result of that will also end up on the Home Secretary’s desk in the form of people seeking asylum in this country, fleeing from wars that we could have done more to prevent had we clamped down and had we provided aid at a different stage. All of this is interconnected, and all of it comes through her Department.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has also commented that it has received no evidence of any serious effort by the UK Government to track Wagner Network’s activities in countries other than Ukraine. That is perhaps not directly within the Home Secretary’s remit, but could she comment a wee bit further on the tracking of the Wagner Group’s activities—on how closely the UK state is monitoring those activities to ensure we understand where they are now and, crucially, where they might be going next? They appear to have a very nimble organisation that can change and evolve, so we need to be mindful that although Prigozhin is gone, there are plenty of people to replace him within that organisation. What they are doing is clearly lucrative, so we need to have that intelligence and analysis of their network to make sure we are keeping a close eye on what happens next, and what more the UK state can do to intervene in it.
Can the Home Secretary talk a bit more about the further sanctions on civilian enablers and frontmen, which I touched on a little when we were debating the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill? There are people in this country, I am certain, who are facilitating a lot of the movement of finance. We have the opportunity to go further than is proposed in the order to look at those frontmen and those who give the organisation its corporate face. Will the UK Government have a regular mechanism for co-ordinating with allies  about sanctions—prioritising travel bans, for example—to make sure that those actors involved in Wagner do not get to move around? Is the Magnitsky sanctions list also co-ordinated with today’s action, and will more sanctions on that list follow? I know that it is not the done thing to say who is going to be sanctioned, but it would be good to get some reassurance that that list is continually under review.
Finally, it would also be useful to know what further mechanisms there are for oversight in this House. We need to be keeping a closer eye on this issue: it should not have taken nine years to get to where we are today. What more will be done to make sure that this is an effective mechanism—that we are keeping a very close eye on this organisation and its operatives, and doing everything we can as a good ally to Ukraine to make sure that all our actions are co-ordinated, working with other allies to make sure everything that can possibly be done to shut down this evil terrorist organisation is done, and done quickly?

Roger Gale: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Layla Moran: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Naturally, I and the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to proscribe Wagner mercenary group as a terrorist organisation, but I hope the Home Secretary hears some of the frustration about how long it has taken. When President Zelensky first addressed the House of Commons on 9 March 2022, just 13 days after Russia’s invasion—I am sure many Members were there; it was profoundly moving—his ask of us was that we recognise Russia as a terrorist state. The next day, our party agreed with him publicly, and furthermore said that we must proscribe Wagner Group. It has been 551 days since the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and the Government only decided last week to finally get their act together. I am sorry, but that is far, far too late.
The proscription comes after the organisation’s infamous leader had his plane mysteriously blown out of the sky, and Wagner Group’s power is now waning. This is a classic case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Yes, Wagner Group are weaker now, but what could we have prevented—what could we have stopped them from doing—had we started this process earlier? This barbarous group have always been terrorists: they were terrorists a year ago, and they were terrorists nine years ago. We did not need more information; we just needed to get on with it.
As has been described, Wagner Group have been wreaking havoc and destruction not just in Ukraine, but all over—in Syria, Mali, the Central African Republic, Sudan and Libya. The Government have repeatedly informed the House of what steps they are taking to provide support to Ukrainians fighting Russian forces and Wagner Group, but I ask the Government to update us on what support we are providing our partners in Africa facing these same bloodthirsty mercenaries. We have taken too long in weakening them, and we have allowed them to take root. We understand that Russia is now falling in behind and trying to recoup some of these contracts, but I am afraid to say that it should not have got to this point.
On sanctions, which were mentioned by the Home Secretary, my colleagues in the House of Lords have recently raised the issue of joint ventures that operate between the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Wagner Group and countries such as Sudan. I join my colleagues in the Lords in hoping that the Government might update money laundering regulations with haste to ensure that these loopholes are closed, because we know these loopholes exist.
I would like to remind the House of a debate we had in January, when we debated the openDemocracy report that exposed how the Government assisted—assisted—Yevgeny Prigozhin in evading sanctions to launch a legal attack on a British journalist. Special licences issued in 2021 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, enabled this move, despite sanctions that had been imposed in 2020 to prevent such dealings with Prigozhin. As I said at the time, that one of the most notorious criminals in the world—and now a UK proscribed terrorist, albeit dead—might have evaded sanctions to sue a British journalist should not have happened, and we still need answers about what happened.
The other thing that remains an unanswered question—again, this is linked—is the issue of golden visas, which lies squarely in the Department of the Home Secretary. Yes, the Government ceased the use of tier 1 investment visas, but time and again they have refused to publish the full review. After five years, they released a short statement about the review, but never the review itself. I am sorry to say that this just creates suspicion. This House needs to know to what extent the Government let Kremlin-linked oligarchs treat this country as their playground, and if it is too sensitive for us to see here, and I accept it might well be, release it to the Intelligence and Security Committee, for example. Let it have the transparency it needs, because if the Government have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.
Finally, I am glad that the Government have finally seen the error of their ways regarding the timeline to proscribe Wagner, but they now must learn this lesson and not wait. In particular, they must not make the same mistake with Iran, and I echo the points made by Members earlier. The Home Secretary will know that 16 September marks the one-year anniversary of the killing of Mahsa Amini in Iran, and time and again across this House we have repeatedly called for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran. The Home Secretary has warmed up her proscription muscles, and I would urge her to use them again, perhaps even this week to mark that tragic anniversary.

Suella Braverman: I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate. Many important issues have been raised, and I am encouraged by the supportive atmosphere in which the discussion has taken place. We all agree that Wagner Group are terrorists plain and simple, and I am confident that this House recognises, as the British people recognise, that we have a moral responsibility to act. We must and we will confront terrorism wherever and however it occurs, and that is why we are taking this action.
Hon. Members have all made very powerful points, and let me attempt to take them in some kind of logical order. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley  Central (Dan Jarvis), raised the issue of comparisons with other international allies. I gently say that we have been working intensively to build international consensus, but also to work closely in a cohesive way with our allies.
The US designation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is equivalent to the sanctions that the UK imposed in March last year. It was not equivalent to our proscription power that we are taking right now. The French Parliament supported a non-binding resolution to call Wagner terrorists, but it has not formally proscribed. That is why I emphasised that we are taking a leadership role in formally proscribing Wagner as a terrorist organisation. I will continue to work with international partners to create a broader consensus.

Layla Moran: I agree with everything that the Home Secretary has said. We are taking a lead, and that is brilliant. Has she had specific conversations on this matter with her counterparts and also with the EU? The EU can also proscribe and designate Wagner as a terrorist organisation, which itself has financial implications. Will she bring that up with the European Union, too?

Suella Braverman: The threat posed by terrorist organisations, including Wagner Group, has been on the agenda in many of my dialogues with international partners because of its wholesale destructive nature and the enormity of the threat that it poses.
The shadow Minister also asked about our broader strategy on Russia and our approach to state threats. What I turn to first is our integrated review, which sets out in the most pressing terms that the most urgent national security and foreign policy priority in the short to medium term is to address the threat posed by Russia to European security. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to defend the rules-based international order, and we stand united in condemning Russia’s reprehensible actions, which are an egregious violation of international law and the UN charter.
When the integrated review was published, it made clear that we are dealing head-on with the threat posed by Russia. We take it extremely seriously, and we have responded to it. We have called out Russian aggression wherever it occurs. The National Security Act 2023—a landmark piece of legislation that overhauls our outdated espionage rules—already creates a wide range of new offences, tools and powers to counter state threats and their activities. In many respects, those cover similar grounds to a proscription-like power of the kind that the shadow Minister was referring to, but the Act will give us and, importantly, equip our agencies with wide-ranging tools to specify a foreign power, or part of a foreign power, or an entity controlled by a foreign power, under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, for example. It will mean that persons in those arrangements will have to register their activities or risk prosecution. That is a groundbreaking tool that we will be equipped with thanks to the passage of that landmark legislation.
The defending democracy taskforce, to which the shadow Minister referred, is leading cross-government work. It is chaired and led by the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), but that cross-government work is taking place to drive forward the taskforce’s  priorities with Parliament, our security and intelligence community, the devolved Administrations, local authorities, the private sector and civil society. It has been incredibly extensive in its coverage so far, and we look forward to its having a tangible impact on those agencies to which I referred.
Several Members asked about sanctions, and in particular the sanctions in place against Wagner Group. In 2020, the UK designated Prigozhin through the Libya sanctions regime. That was for his and Wagner Group’s involvement in activities that threatened the peace, stability and security of Libya, including defying the UN arms embargoes. In March 2022, the UK also designated the Wagner Group for their role in actions that destabilised Ukraine. Asset freezes were imposed on funds identified as belonging to the Wagner Group in the UK, as well as travel bans on any of their members.
In July this year, the Foreign Secretary announced 13 new UK sanctions targeting a range of individuals and businesses linked to the actions of the Wagner Group in Africa. That included individuals from the Wagner Group associated with executions and torture in Mali and the Central African Republic, and threats to peace and security in Sudan. Those sanctions have had an impact: they constrained the ability to utilise assets and limited the ability to travel. As I said, the framework has constrained the freedoms and abilities of these organisations and individuals. Of course, the broad-ranging set of sanctions has been one of the largest sets of sanctions imposed on a modern economy.
Several hon. Members asked what more the Government are doing to monitor the risk that the Wagner Group and other Russian private military companies or mercenaries fragment and reform in different moulds. Our approach to tackling Wagner and other Russian PMCs has three core strands: military, sanctions and state building. The extensive military support we have given to Ukraine seeks to counter the threat that Wagner pose there, and our sanctions constrain their ability to utilise assets and to travel.
Our diplomatic engagement with partners around the world focuses on supporting fragile states to build their own capacity and discourage Wagner from taking root. Several hon. Members referenced how Wagner trade in violence and benefit through Governments, para-governments or paramilitary groups plundering resources, assets and other forms of wealth in those nations. If those states are robust and resilient in the first place, groups such as Wagner will not be able to take root. That work relating to private military companies is extensive, and our cross-Government Russia unit brings our full range of capabilities to bear against the malign influences of these contractors, in concert with our allies.
Several hon. Members referenced Africa. For many years, Wagner have had a destabilising effect on the African continent. They have been reportedly responsible for multiple breaches of international humanitarian law and abuses of human rights, including numerous reports of indiscriminate killings of unarmed civilians, summary executions and rape. We have again sought to take a leading role in reducing opportunities for Wagner to operate in Africa and holding them to account for the atrocities they commit.
Lastly, several hon. Members—notably my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—referenced the IRGC. It is clear that Iran continues to pose a persistent threat to UK-based individuals, which is unacceptable. There has obviously been significant parliamentary, media and public interest in a potential proscription decision on the IRGC. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have discussed IRGC proscription, with the House of Commons unanimously passing a motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe it. It is clear that the Iranian regime continues to occupy a serious and worrying role in our global order. We continue to condemn Iran’s role as one of the top military backers of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Since August last year, Tehran has transferred hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles to Moscow, in violation of UN Security Council resolution 2231. We work tirelessly with our international partners to hold Iran to account for the sale of drones to Russia, and we have imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities involved in the illegal transfers to Russia. They add to the already extensive sanctions on Iran’s drone programmes. We have also publicly raised this matter twice at the UN Security Council, alongside France, Germany and the US, and we support Ukraine’s request for a UN investigation.
It is clear that Iran continues to pose a persistent threat to UK-based individuals, which is unacceptable. The Department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under review. I know I will frustrate colleagues to say that our policy is not to comment on the specifics of individual proscription cases, and that I am unable to provide further details on this issue. I have heard the comments of Members here and the sentiment of the House. Ministers previously confirmed to this House that the decision was under active consideration but that we would not provide a running commentary. I know that will disappoint Members, but we are cognisant and open-eyed about the threat that the IRGC poses to the UK.
I am very grateful for this House’s support for the decision to proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation. The brutality and the enormity of destruction and devastation wreaked by this group is unspeakable. It is right that we act now. I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on  6 September, be approved.

Mark Jenkinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice. Recently, Cumberland Council, which incidentally happens to be Labour-led, wrote to me about the impact of the EU’s nutrient neutrality rules on house building in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). As well as a number of new businesses and business expansions being held up, I am told that more than 2,500 new homes that have gone through the planning process and are awaiting granted permission have been blocked, and a further 1,450 homes as part of St Cuthbert’s garden village have been blocked. At least one national house builder  has effectively withdrawn from the region. The forecasted turnover reduction runs into millions of pounds, with the inevitable impact on local jobs and the supply chain.
The council also says that the impact of the small amount of mitigation that may be found for some developments will be a reduction in section 106 agreements for affordable housing. Hundreds of jobs in my constituency are at risk. The Government found a solution and we have now found out that the Opposition plan to block it, after previously signalling agreement. I wonder if a Minister might signal their intention to come to the House to set out the impact that the flip-flopping of His Majesty’s Opposition might have on constituencies such as Workington.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has placed his view on the record, and it has been heard by Ministers. He will understand it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am quite sure that Members on both Front Benches will have heard what he has had to say and will treat the matter with the respect that it deserves.

Petition - 150 years of Notting Hill and Ealing High School

Rupa Huq: I rise to present a petition signed by people from Ealing, Acton and Chiswick—all parts of my constituency. Fittingly, they are all women, because it regards Notting Hill and Ealing High School, an all-girls school that is 150 years young this weekend. If I am to declare an interest, it is that I am product of that school, as many women have been since 1873. The petition states:
“The petitioners…request that the House of Commons urges the Government to celebrate the achievements of”—
the outstanding—
“Notting Hill and Ealing High School”.
In fact, it is not just a high school; it educates people from kindergarten and all the way from four to 18 years old. It urges the Government
“to recognise the historic and important role it has played in supporting girls’ education”
and empowering women.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton in London,
Declares that the Government should recognise the 150th anniversary of Notting Hill and Ealing High School on 16 September 2023; further that the ISI inspectors reported, “pupils’ achievement in curricular and extra-curricular activities and their learning is exceptional as is their attainment in national tests at age 11 and at A Levels.” Further notes that the school thrives on allowing individuals to express themselves.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to celebrate the achievements of Notting Hill and Ealing High School, and to recognise the historic and important role it has played in supporting girls’ education.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002856]

Residential Co-operative  Power Production

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

Jamie Wallis: I am grateful to have secured this debate to champion reform that is not only innovative but pragmatic: an idea that encapsulates the essence of empowerment, economic prudence and the responsible stewardship of our environment. At the heart of this vision is the unequivocal call to reconsider our approach to funding residential co-operative power production, in particular by not imposing green levies on individuals who choose to invest in their own renewables, no matter where in the country they may be. It is not just about fiscal prudence, but about putting the power to shape our green energy future back into the hands of the people.
We live in a time where large-scale wind and solar energy have emerged as the United Kingdom’s most viable sources of renewable electricity. Yet what truly sets this era apart is the exciting realisation that ordinary people, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and me, can now own a share of a wind farm or a solar park. This is not merely a financial transaction; it is an opportunity for each of us to become an active participant in shaping the trajectory of the UK’s energy landscape—a vision reminiscent of the transformative privatisations of the 1980s by the revolutionary Thatcher Government.
Consumer ownership of green energy assets goes beyond mere financial gains; it empowers individuals to play a pivotal role in the transition to net zero emissions. It makes tangible and accessible our personal contributions to, and the benefits from, that shift. So, how does it work? The process is simple: as individuals, we can purchase shares in a renewable power production initiative, alongside thousands of others. We receive our share of the electricity generated, delivered directly to our homes via the national grid. We experience tangible savings on our electricity bills each month for the entire lifespan of the asset.
A growing number of consumers, both households and businesses, have taken the bold step to invest in their own off-site green energy generation. They are not just securing energy independence for themselves; they are contributing significantly to the UK’s environmental targets. These consumers invest by purchasing shares in residential co-operative power production initiatives, bearing their portion of upfront construction costs. Owners of these shares receive their share of the electricity generated, delivered to them via the grid. Importantly, their energy suppliers purchase this electricity at the low operating cost of the co-operative, rather than at the fluctuating wholesale market prices. The resulting savings are then applied directly to the owners’ bills each month, stabilising costs over the long term.
However, a glaring issue demands our immediate attention. Consumers who invest in their own renewable power production have energy levies integrated directly into their electricity bills by virtue of the fact that they are purchasing from the grid. Contracts for difference, feed-in tariffs, green levies and so on all come off their bills. Paradoxically, the levies mean that consumers who own their own green energy assets effectively subsidise  the green power consumption of others. The energy levies serve as a significant deterrent to investment in consumer-owned residential co-operative power. They hinder people from directly reaping the rewards of the UK’s transition to net zero—a counterintuitive outcome, to say the least.
My proposal is simple yet powerful: consumers who own shares in off-site renewable power production should be granted an exemption from the levies. Such a step could potentially reduce their bills by a remarkable 44%. That would create a compelling incentive for consumers to invest in their own source of green power, unlocking a new wave of personal private ownership of UK infrastructure. Moreover, there is another aspect that warrants attention. A portion of the savings that consumers accumulate on their electricity bills is currently liable to taxation. The savings are treated as interest, and if they surpass their owner’s annual interest allowance they become subject to taxation. The taxation of these savings serves as a significant deterrent to investing in energy ownership, as it adds complexity and uncertainty to the financial picture. In developing a sustainable future, taxing consumers’ bill savings from off-site renewable energy ownership is also counterproductive. I propose that we rectify it by exempting all bill savings from off-site green energy production from taxation. That would bring this into line with the treatment of home solar, creating a level playing field for all renewable energy investments.
Members may be wondering about the potential cost impact, so let me be clear: if these energy levy and tax exemptions did not induce people to invest in their own energy assets, there would be no cost at all to the Treasury or to other consumers. The scale of the cost impact hinges directly on the scale of the adoption of green energy ownership within the residential co-operatives. If people do not invest, there will be no costs. To put that into perspective, if just 10% of consumers decided to invest in such a manner, the levies imposed on other consumers would increase by approximately 11%—approximately £15 a year. These costs would be deferred and the Treasury’s revenue would be neutral for, probably, the next five or six quarters.
To underscore the real-world impact of this proposal, let me share with the House a compelling case study. It concerns a wind farm launched by Ripple Energy, not far from Cardiff and near my constituency of Bridgend, in Porthcawl. It was one of the first consumer-owned wind farms, owned collectively by 900 individuals from across the country who invested an average of £2,200 each. It has been generating clean electricity since March 2022, and has saved its owners an average of £320 on their electricity bills, with projected savings of about £970 in its second year. These substantial savings are attributable to the recent surge in electricity prices. Importantly, ownership of the wind farm has shielded those individuals from the price spikes that have burdened other consumers in recent times.
If we look beyond the immediate financial and logistical benefits, we see that this proposal carries even more profound significance in the context of our nation’s future. It positions us on a path to energy independence and resilience against global energy price shocks—vulnerabilities exposed by international conflicts and wars such as what we are currently witnessing in Ukraine.  In post-Brexit Britain, this initiative is emblematic of the British public taking back control—taking control of their energy future; taking control of their financial wellbeing; and taking control of our contribution to a greener, more sustainable world. It encapsulates the very essence of British self-reliance and national pride, aligning perfectly with the spirit of autonomy that Brexit has come to symbolise.
Beyond the immediate fiscal and environmental benefits, this proposal has the power to shape our society. It can foster a sense of collective purpose and unity as people from all walks of life come together to invest in our common future. Imagine communities rallying around the prospect of owning a share of a local wind farm or solar park. Imagine schools and universities engaging students in the process of renewable energy ownership, educating them about the importance of sustainability and self-reliance. Picture a future when our energy landscape is dominated not solely by faceless corporations, but by the collective will of the people—a tapestry of interconnected, community-owned energy assets that serve as symbols of resilience and sustainability.
Furthermore, in line with the Government’s commitment to grow the economy, this initiative can act as a catalyst for innovation and job creation. As more and more consumers invest in green energy ownership, the demand for renewable energy technologies will soar. This will spur research and development in the UK renewables sector, creating new opportunities for scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. Simultaneously, the growth of the consumer-owned green energy sector will lead to the establishment of local energy co-operatives and businesses, generating employment and economic growth in regions across the UK.
In a world where the challenges of climate change loom large, where global energy prices are subject to geopolitical disruption and where the public’s desire for self-determination has never been more pronounced, this proposal is a testament to our ability to take control of our lives. It is a resounding declaration that we, the people of the United Kingdom, are not mere spectators in the unfolding drama of our energy future; we are its authors and its protagonists.
In conclusion, what we have before us is not merely a fiscal proposal, but a transformative vision; one that empowers individuals, safeguards our energy future, and solidifies our commitment to a sustainable tomorrow. By not taxing green levies on those individuals who choose to invest in their own renewables, we would be giving power back to the people, and ensuring that everyone could partake in our collective journey toward a more sustainable, fairer and more resilient tomorrow.

Graham Stuart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) on securing this important debate, and thank him for sharing his thoughts during the conversation that we were able to have ahead of it. As we heard in his moving and well-thought-out speech, he has continued to be a champion in this regard. I want to begin by assuring him that the Government recognise the importance of empowering local communities to come together to deliver renewable energy projects for their areas, be that putting solar panels on school roofs,  setting up electric vehicle chargers in local communities or developing residential power production using hydro, say, to power a village.
My hon. Friend has raised a concern that people who invest in their own renewable energy are still required to pay the green levies that are part of their energy bills and he made an appeal that they should cease to do so. Levies more than pay for themselves by driving investment in renewables. He mentioned the fact that large-scale renewables have driven down costs enormously over the last decade or so, not least through our contracts for difference scheme, which this Government are very proud of. These levies provide vital support to low-income and vulnerable households and, because of the way they have been used in the system, they have saved consumers money on their energy bills overall over the past 10 years.
Having a fair system relies on everyone being part of it. If consumers anywhere are reliant on the infrastructure that is developed by the whole, there is a strong case that they should contribute to that whole; otherwise, there is a danger of creating a system that is the opposite of what my hon. Friend seeks—namely, a system that is less fair, in which people can buy their way out of a system that is designed to cater for all.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the cost of the UK’s transition to net zero is fair and affordable for all energy consumers and, over the past decade, environmental and social schemes have been instrumental in driving the decarbonisation of the system. It is fair that all consumers should contribute towards the cost of these schemes, as the UK’s transition to abundant low-carbon energy over the coming decades will bring benefits to households and businesses everywhere. Our recent exposure to volatile global gas prices underscores the importance of our plan to build a strong home-grown renewable energy sector in order further to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, but one that, importantly, ensures that everyone everywhere, whether or not they can invest in their own local renewable energy, is protected and looked after.
Some billpayer-funded schemes are important for tackling fuel poverty by providing financial support or home upgrades to low income and vulnerable households. We do not wish to see a system in which people can withdraw from supporting that. Ofgem, the energy regulator in Great Britain, administers renewable energy and social schemes on behalf of the Government and ensures that policy targets are met in as economical and consumer-friendly a way as possible. A list of the current environmental and social schemes that are funded through those bills can be found on Ofgem’s website.
In response to my hon. Friend’s point about changing the tax rules specifically on bill savings from off-site renewable ownership—he will know what is coming—I have no choice but to comment that taxation is a matter not for me but for the Chancellor. However, I would like to reassure him that we see value in, and support, community energy, including co-operatives that come together to create community energy projects such as Graig Fatha, which he mentioned. They play a role in our efforts to eliminate our contribution to climate change.
The Government offer a range of support to that type of project, perhaps just slightly different in nature to the ones that he has so passionately espoused today. They include the brilliant new £10 million community  energy fund. This enables both rural and urban communities across England to access grant funding to develop local renewable energy projects for investment. The community energy fund follows on from the success of the rural community energy fund, which was delivered through our local net zero hubs and has funded several innovative projects. An example is Swaffham Prior in east Cambridgeshire, a pioneering project in a village of around 300 homes. It is one of the first villages in the UK to install a heating network into the existing infrastructure. In order to get more brilliant projects such as Swaffham Prior set up, we are aiming to launch applications to the community energy fund as soon as possible.
I recognise that the community energy fund is open only to communities in England. This is because the devolved nations have their own support schemes for community energy. For instance, the Welsh Government have the Energy Service, which works with both the public sector and community enterprises to reduce energy use, to generate locally owned renewable energy and to reduce carbon emissions. Similarly, the Scottish Government’s community and renewable energy scheme supports communities across Scotland to engage with, participate in and benefit from the energy transition to net zero.
Community energy funding is available alongside UK-wide growth funding, and we encourage community energy groups and residential co-operatives to work closely with their local authority to support the development of community energy projects within these schemes. The UK shared prosperity fund supports interventions that reinforce our commitment to reach net zero, and that includes £2.6 billion of funding for investment in places, including for community infrastructure projects. An example of that is West Devon District Council, which has been among the local areas to benefit from this type of UK growth funding. It received £1.1 million under the shared prosperity fund, which includes provisions to support community energy groups, helping them to bring projects forward and to access funds to support their goals. I entirely share the vision and the aspiration set out by my hon. Friend, and we have measures in place to ensure that can be brought to reality.
Beyond this, Ofgem also supports community energy projects and is now welcoming applications from community interest groups, co-operative societies and community benefit societies to the industry voluntary redress scheme, which is much more helpful than its name suggests. This allows groups to apply for funds to deliver energy-related projects that support energy consumers in vulnerable situations, that support decarbonisation and that benefit people in England, Scotland and Wales.
We also regularly engage with the community energy sector through the community energy contact group. This is our central engagement method to stay in touch with community energy, to hear from the voices of that community and to allow the people involved to feed into Government policy.
I know many Members, including my hon. Friend, will have supported the Local Electricity Bill and the amendments on community energy that were tabled on the Energy Bill. During the passage of the Energy Bill, which I am delighted to say has now completed its Commons stages, the Government carefully considered  the amendments that sought to ensure a right to local supply. We set out the reasons why we were unable to accept those amendments and why it was not right to do so, which included ensuring the best outcomes for consumers and the sector overall, but the Government recognise that community energy projects have real benefits for the communities in which they are based and for the nation as a whole, and we are keen to ensure that they deliver value for money for consumers nationally and locally alike.
We have worked closely with many parliamentarians and the community energy sector to develop commitments that will better support the development of this type of energy. These commitments include the launch of the £10 million community energy fund, which I have already mentioned, alongside which we have committed to publishing an annual report and to consulting on the barriers that the sector faces when developing projects, precisely to ensure that we can have more of them.  We are working with the sector through the community energy contact group so that we have the most effective routes available and so that we make it as easy for communities to understand the help that is available in the system.
I close by thanking my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for the manner in which he opened it. I am proud of the wide range of support that the Government offer to community energy groups across the country. This support enables local community groups to come together to deliver renewable energy projects for their area, including in residential co-operatives. I share the vision that my hon. Friend set out, and I look forward to working closely with him, in Wales, Scotland, England and right across the United Kingdom, to see that vision made even more of a reality than it is today.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Exiting the European Union

That the draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 434, Noes 10.
Question accordingly agreed to.